BLOGNOW ARCHIVES - PART 1 - 2009

ACTIVIST KICKS BACKS - AKB Home | Profile | Archives | Friends


Anti-censorship, anti-homophobia, anti-religious right fanaticism, anti-zionism, pro-human rights for ALL!

Announce to all Blognow.com.au users 23.3.2010

Hello to all users. We intend to make. blognow.com.au free ads, but we have expenses to pay. We have created a new user group name "sponsor group", and users here are making our web to survive. You can click on upgrade link on the top right of your control panel to upgrade to become sponsor user. Last but not least, all sponsor user blog will be promoted on the homepage of Blognow.com.au for their support. Thanks for all the support. :) Blognow.com.au Team.


KEVIN RUDD GETS AN AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 30.1.2009

Kevin Rudd is obviously in need of having his complete disregard of human rights monitored and recorded.
As items crop up they will be added to the list and comments added where appropriate.
1) Censorship
2) War in Afghanistan
3) Absence of same-sex legislation reforms having a grandfather clause
4) Taxation for religious institutions
5) "marriage" what is it? - marriage-like arrangement - what is it?
6) ban on abortion aid to 3rd world countries
7) Northern Territory Intervention
8) support for coal and uranium mining
9) hetero couples receiving couples - rate pensions when clearly they are two people
10) health minister's homophobic appointments
11) unqualified support for Israel
12) lack of support for Palestine

(Posted in Australian politics and politicians)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


MICHAEL BRULL'S OPEN LETTER TO ISRAELI AMBASSADOR 30.1.2009

27 Jan 2009
An Open Letter To The Israeli Ambassador
By Michael Brull

The Israeli Government is in no position to lecture us on what free speech means, writes Michael Brull
Dear Mr Rotem,
I have to say that the arrogance of your article in The Age, arguing that the paper should not have published a piece by Hamas official Khalid Meshaal left me stunned. Even by the standards of your Government it was quite something. Do you really think that you are entitled, as Israel's ambassador to Australia, to tell The Age who it should and should not be publishing?
And yet, as I read on, you climbed to even greater heights of audacity. You managed to brag about Israel's free press and democratic credentials, while calling on our press in Australia to restrict its freedoms — which coming from you amounts to an order from a foreign administration. Perhaps, as a representative of Israel's Government, you've become used to the idea of restricting critical scrutiny of Israel's actions.?
Of course, the arrogant attitude of your Government towards those who dare criticise Israel's actions is nothing new. I haven't forgotten when your Government decided that it would not allow academic Norman Finkelstein into Israel. Your free press did manage to speak out about that, but your demonstration of contempt for freedom of opinion was surprising in its brazenness. And there was more to come.
Not so long ago, I read in your press about Israel's decision not to admit the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Princeton professor Richard Falk. Your Government took this decision on the grounds that Falk thought Israel's human rights record was abysmal. This is the kind of reasoning that makes perfect sense to military dictatorships around the world, and does rather compromise your attempts to lecture us on how to conduct a mature political debate.
But your Government's habitual arrogance, expressed through its contempt for international opinion, went even further. Surely you recall that foreign journalists, desperate to get into Gaza to find out what was happening during Israel's onslaught, were prevented from doing so by Israel's army. As the Yedioth Ahronot newspaper noted, even relatively conservative foreign journalists were forced to see the parallels between Israel's attitude to the press and that of Burma and Zimbabwe.
Mr Rotem, we know that your country seeks to restrict political dissent. Your own free press, which you're so proud of, has been deploring the crackdowns on those who wanted to protest the latest series of Israeli atrocities. (Are you also proud of arresting over 700 anti-war protestors?)
We've noticed that your country has decided to ban both of the Arab parties currently in the Knesset from running in the next elections. As Haaretz's editorial on the matter noted, the petition to ban Balad came from the Yisrael Beiteinu party. Your Government has repeatedly welcomed its head, Avigdor Lieberman into cabinet posts. But while you admonish us for publishing what you call Meshaal's "hate-filled rhetoric" — and readers can judge that piece for themselves — you apparently see no problem with Lieberman's views — which include promoting the further expulsion of Palestinians from Israel - getting plenty of play in your press.
With that kind of double-standard in your attitude, who are you, Mr Rotem, to lecture us on what our press should and should not print? What do you think Australia has to learn from Israel on this matter? I'm actually glad you were ridiculous enough to claim that Meshaal "sought to inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric". This is a textbook case of calling someone's argument "anti-Semitic" simply to demonise them and to avoid engaging with what they are saying. (In this case, it's a little depressing that this is the best you can do — after all, the man you were attacking is the head of an organisation whose founding charter cites "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".)
But the problem isn't that Meshaal's article was anti-Semitic, which it wasn't. It's that he plainly described the suffering of the Gazans, which ordinary people find shocking. And for good reason.
You claim to be appalled that The Age would run an op-ed by one of the leaders of a "terrorist organisation", one that would dare commit such crimes as "aim rockets at civilian targets", and one which "stages attacks on civilians". Do you think we're stupid? Do you think that we haven't noticed your crimes against the Palestinians?
Consider, for example, what Amnesty International has discovered, now that you've finally allowed them into Gaza. Their fact-finding team says that "previously busy neighbourhoods have been flattened into moonscapes ... power lines have been torn down, and water mains ripped up. Gaza's infrastructure is now in dire condition." The summary of the preliminary investigations goes on to note that "[s]chools, medical facilities and UN buildings all took direct hits from the Israeli army's indiscriminate shelling [italics added]. Artillery shells for use on conventional battlefields, not for pinpoint targets, have been fired into dense residential areas."
Amnesty also noted that the UNRWA Field Office in Gaza City was shelled on 15 January, destroying "[w]arehouses full of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid", in just one of the reported instances of Israel's use of white phosphorous ammunition. Amnesty says that white phosphorous should never be used in civilian areas, but it was not only used to destroy tons of aid supplies, but also in an attack on al-Quds hospital in Gaza.
Of course, because you didn't let journalists into Gaza while you were bombing it, we've only been able to get a fragmented idea of your crimes there so far. But we've already heard enough stories of your bombing civilian areas, of your soldiers shooting Palestinians waving white flags, and of other atrocities. Are we meant to forget about the hundreds of Palestinian children you've killed over the last few weeks? Are we meant to forget about the shameless and inconsistent apologetics you've offered for the few atrocities that have attracted the scrutiny of the Western media?
Hamas did kill three Israeli civilians during your campaign of bombing and invading Gaza. Yet your crimes against the Palestinians are literally over a hundred times worse, if we only count murders of civilians through the use of indiscriminate weapons. Meanwhile Israel's crimes against the Palestinians living under occupation for decades stretch on into many other areas, and Israel's appalling siege on Gaza has made this latest onslaught particularly grim.
Mr Rotem, I find your views grossly offensive. But I support your right to print them in any paper willing to publish your vulgar propaganda. The more the better, since it is in this realm of free, open debate that your Government is weakest. And all the tanks in the world won't change that.
Yours Sincerely,
Michael Brull

(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


OPEN LETTER TO ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA 28.1.2009

This open letter was published in the New Matilda journal and some of the abusive posts it attracted as rsponses are really quite alarming, and shows there is still a long way to go in the propaganda war:
israel/palestine
27 Jan 2009
An Open Letter To The Israeli Ambassador
By Michael Brull

•
The Israeli Government is in no position to lecture us on what free speech means, writes Michael Brull
Dear Mr Rotem,
I have to say that the arrogance of your article in The Age, arguing that the paper should not have published a piece by Hamas official Khalid Meshaal left me stunned. Even by the standards of your Government it was quite something. Do you really think that you are entitled, as Israel's ambassador to Australia, to tell The Age who it should and should not be publishing?
And yet, as I read on, you climbed to even greater heights of audacity. You managed to brag about Israel's free press and democratic credentials, while calling on our press in Australia to restrict its freedoms — which coming from you amounts to an order from a foreign administration. Perhaps, as a representative of Israel's Government, you've become used to the idea of restricting critical scrutiny of Israel's actions.?
Of course, the arrogant attitude of your Government towards those who dare criticise Israel's actions is nothing new. I haven't forgotten when your Government decided that it would not allow academic Norman Finkelstein into Israel. Your free press did manage to speak out about that, but your demonstration of contempt for freedom of opinion was surprising in its brazenness. And there was more to come.
Not so long ago, I read in your press about Israel's decision not to admit the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Princeton professor Richard Falk. Your Government took this decision on the grounds that Falk thought Israel's human rights record was abysmal. This is the kind of reasoning that makes perfect sense to military dictatorships around the world, and does rather compromise your attempts to lecture us on how to conduct a mature political debate.
But your Government's habitual arrogance, expressed through its contempt for international opinion, went even further. Surely you recall that foreign journalists, desperate to get into Gaza to find out what was happening during Israel's onslaught, were prevented from doing so by Israel's army. As the Yedioth Ahronot newspaper noted, even relatively conservative foreign journalists were forced to see the parallels between Israel's attitude to the press and that of Burma and Zimbabwe.
Mr Rotem, we know that your country seeks to restrict political dissent. Your own free press, which you're so proud of, has been deploring the crackdowns on those who wanted to protest the latest series of Israeli atrocities. (Are you also proud of arresting over 700 anti-war protestors?)
We've noticed that your country has decided to ban both of the Arab parties currently in the Knesset from running in the next elections. As Haaretz's editorial on the matter noted, the petition to ban Balad came from the Yisrael Beiteinu party. Your Government has repeatedly welcomed its head, Avigdor Lieberman into cabinet posts. But while you admonish us for publishing what you call Meshaal's "hate-filled rhetoric" — and readers can judge that piece for themselves — you apparently see no problem with Lieberman's views — which include promoting the further expulsion of Palestinians from Israel - getting plenty of play in your press.
With that kind of double-standard in your attitude, who are you, Mr Rotem, to lecture us on what our press should and should not print? What do you think Australia has to learn from Israel on this matter? I'm actually glad you were ridiculous enough to claim that Meshaal "sought to inflame anti-Semitic rhetoric". This is a textbook case of calling someone's argument "anti-Semitic" simply to demonise them and to avoid engaging with what they are saying. (In this case, it's a little depressing that this is the best you can do — after all, the man you were attacking is the head of an organisation whose founding charter cites "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".)
But the problem isn't that Meshaal's article was anti-Semitic, which it wasn't. It's that he plainly described the suffering of the Gazans, which ordinary people find shocking. And for good reason.
You claim to be appalled that The Age would run an op-ed by one of the leaders of a "terrorist organisation", one that would dare commit such crimes as "aim rockets at civilian targets", and one which "stages attacks on civilians". Do you think we're stupid? Do you think that we haven't noticed your crimes against the Palestinians?
Consider, for example, what Amnesty International has discovered, now that you've finally allowed them into Gaza. Their fact-finding team says that "previously busy neighbourhoods have been flattened into moonscapes ... power lines have been torn down, and water mains ripped up. Gaza's infrastructure is now in dire condition." The summary of the preliminary investigations goes on to note that "[s]chools, medical facilities and UN buildings all took direct hits from the Israeli army's indiscriminate shelling [italics added]. Artillery shells for use on conventional battlefields, not for pinpoint targets, have been fired into dense residential areas."
Amnesty also noted that the UNRWA Field Office in Gaza City was shelled on 15 January, destroying "[w]arehouses full of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid", in just one of the reported instances of Israel's use of white phosphorous ammunition. Amnesty says that white phosphorous should never be used in civilian areas, but it was not only used to destroy tons of aid supplies, but also in an attack on al-Quds hospital in Gaza.
Of course, because you didn't let journalists into Gaza while you were bombing it, we've only been able to get a fragmented idea of your crimes there so far. But we've already heard enough stories of your bombing civilian areas, of your soldiers shooting Palestinians waving white flags, and of other atrocities. Are we meant to forget about the hundreds of Palestinian children you've killed over the last few weeks? Are we meant to forget about the shameless and inconsistent apologetics you've offered for the few atrocities that have attracted the scrutiny of the Western media?
Hamas did kill three Israeli civilians during your campaign of bombing and invading Gaza. Yet your crimes against the Palestinians are literally over a hundred times worse, if we only count murders of civilians through the use of indiscriminate weapons. Meanwhile Israel's crimes against the Palestinians living under occupation for decades stretch on into many other areas, and Israel's appalling siege on Gaza has made this latest onslaught particularly grim.
Mr Rotem, I find your views grossly offensive. But I support your right to print them in any paper willing to publish your vulgar propaganda. The more the better, since it is in this realm of free, open debate that your Government is weakest. And all the tanks in the world won't change that.
Yours Sincerely,
Michael Brull

(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AND THE HOMOPHOBIA OF THE RUDD GOVERNMENT 26.1.2009

3 January 2009

What is wrong with these article headlines in the Fairfax media? To save you guessing, we will provide the answer! WIDOWER is the word which is incorrect and hypocritical of the media and the government in dealing with this issue.
The use of the word WIDOWER implies marriage, and the government when it was in opposition and currently, together with the current opposition when it was in government passed legislation which states that "marriage is between a man and a woman only" and for all time!
Now the government is talking about marriage-like arrangements in its instructions to Centrelink to pursue same-sex people living together in a residence and being de facto couples. The hypocrisy is a disgrace and needs to be exposed as much as possible. That is what these web pages will endeavour to do.
Article in the Sydney Morning Herald - also in The Age with the heading:
Pension fight win for gay war widower:

Justice at last for gay war widower
Edward Young … "What I wanted was to take on the little man, Howard, and fight."
Edward Young has finally proved he is entitled to a war pension, writes Jonathan Dart. Every so often, Edward Young sits on the couch in his apartment and closes his eyes. "And then I just pretend I'm not here any more," he says.
It has been 10 years since his partner, Larry Cains, died. They met in London in 1960 - he, a model, was introduced to Mr Cains, a photographer who had served with the Australian Army in Borneo during World War II.
"He was desperately handsome," Mr Young said. "We spent two weeks together and I told him I wanted to spend my life with him."
Now, after a decade of fighting to have the law recognise his and Mr Cains's love as equal, the Sydneysider will soon become the country's first recognised gay war widower. Laws passed in November mean that partners in gay relationships with serving and retired soldiers will, for the first time, be allowed to claim pensions - opening the door for the so-called "forgotten people" of our military heritage and allowing for more people to make claims that must be paid out.
The decision will end a long-winded battle for Mr Young that began in a small inner-city law office, when he applied for a pension only to find the Veterans' Entitlements Act limited the definition of "couple". Under the old law, his 38 years with Mr Cains were invalid because he could not prove he was "living with a member of the opposite sex".
Having lived through a time when discrimination against gay men was rife, Mr Young said the wording still jolted him. "I didn't really need the pension," he said. "I didn't even really want it. What I wanted was to take on the little man, [the former prime minister John] Howard, and fight."
Mr Young took his claim to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The case dragged on for years.
"I wanted a decision that wouldn't just apply to my own circumstances," he said. "What I wanted was something that would apply right across the board. I wanted something that would say that, yes, there was discrimination and it didn't just apply to me. It applied to all facets of our law."
In September 2003 the UN concluded Australia had breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Mr Young was "entitled to an effective remedy, including the reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation".
But the victory was short-lived. Although the decision was used as a reference point in other countries to implement anti-discrimination laws, the Howard government held out on reviewing Mr Young's case. As late as November 2007, the UN high commissioner asked the government to clarify whether it would review its laws. A spokeswoman for the Veterans' Affairs Minister, Alan Griffin, said yesterday the new laws would apply to Mr Young and take effect in July.
"People such as Mr Young will not be denied a war widow or widower's pension on the basis of a same-sex relationship," she said. "We would encourage anyone who was (or is) in a same-sex relationship who wishes to make a claim to the department to do so after that date."
The last jolt in his struggle came this week when Mr Young applied for his war pension one last time before the legislation changes.
He received the familiar pro forma rejection letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs informing him he did not qualify for the pension: "But I don't mind waiting another six months," he said. "The laws have been changed; we've won now. I've been waiting 10 years."
6 January 2009

The following letter was sent to MCV, suggesting that they may like to publish it as a carbon copy (cc). The magazine edited it and published their edited version. The letter is shown below in full and the edited items are shown in blue:
The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009.
From: Kendall Lovett,
Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (LGS) Melbourne,
PO Box 1675, Preston South Vic. 3072.
Dear Minister,
The members of this group have had time to consider some of the consequences of the recent change of legislative status, to take effect on 1st July 2009, for same-sex couples who are already receiving age or disability pensions.
The government has gone to some length to inform us that, with this legislation, it has removed same-sex discrimination from a wide range of Commonwealth laws. That may well be so on paper but as far as pensions are concerned the Rudd government has just added its own new brand of discrimination against us.
Every significant change to social security laws passed in the last 15 years has included a ‘grandfather’ clause to minimise harsh consequences for those already in the system (Adele Horin, SMH 6.12.08). Why wasn’t there a grandfather in this legislative change, for lesbians and gays? It looks as though it may well have been intentional to let us know that our relationships aren’t really in the same class as hetero marriages.
However, there is still time to give us a grandfather clause allowing those already in the system to be exempted. We think it could be done by one of those convenient regulations that don’t always have to be approved by parliament. I think you’ll find that Ministers in the previous Howard government used the regulatory system in a raft of anti-terror laws to cover some controversial sections.
The next best status to a marriage is de facto because there is no binding official recognition like a Marriage Certificate so the government equates a same-sex relationship to de facto provided we tell them we are in a marriage-like relationship or Centrelink decides to use its guidelines to determine two people living in the same house are in a marriage-like relationship and therefore a same-sex couple. We had a badge back in the 70s which we wore with pride which said: ‘How dare you assume I’m heterosexual!’ Now we need to change it to ‘How dare you assume that mine is a marriage-like relationship!’ Your government joined the previous government to amend the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. So, really it’s discriminatory to call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage-like’ because the government has refused to give us the equivalent status of a regulatory licence, and it has said so, because it would look like a marriage. It’s not just discriminatory it’s hypocritical to expect us to accept the inappropriate interdependency lower couple rate of pension.
You can get over the whole problem by simply dispensing with the outdated 19th century couple rate and instead pay the single adult rate to each individual of a couple. It would save a heap of money by doing away with Centrelink’s intrusive and costly investigations into people’s lives. What an unexpected gift from this government to all those different-sex couples, too. It should be a strong recommendation by Dr Jeff Harmer (Secretary, FaHCSIA) to the Review Panel chaired by the Secretary to Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, of the Inquiry into Australia’s Future Tax System. It’s the obvious solution to the vexing problem of the couple rate in pensions which is a throw-back to the time when a woman was regarded as a chattel of her husband.
Sincerely,
Signed: Kendall Lovett
for Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne).
7 January 2009

This letter was sent to Nicola Roxon, and also to some of the gay and lesbian papers. So far the only one to publish it has been SX in Sydney. Here is the letter, also sent to KRudd:
An open letter Written by Mannie De Saxe
Wednesday, 07 January 2009 10:38
To the Health Minister Nicola Roxon
I have received a letter dated 24 December 2008 from Julianne Quaine of the Department of Health and Ageing in which she states that you have asked her to reply on your behalf to the email of 28 November 2008 which I wrote to the Prime Minister about the men’s health ambassadors.
I notice that you did not reply to the email I sent to you personally about the appointment of the homophobic Barry Williams as one of your ‘ambassadors’.
As an 82-year-old gay man, I would not consider for one moment consulting with, or having anything to do with, a group of people which contained those who actually wish to see people like me eliminated from the face of the earth.
It is incumbent on you as the Minister for Health and Ageing to consider the characters of people appointed to positions in which they would be dealing with a diverse group of men whose sexuality is a sensitive issue, and has been for much of their lives.
Dealing with a government which is basically homophobic and constrained by religious principles in its responses to people of different sexualities does not inspire confidence in a Minister who persists in retaining her appointment of a known hater of homosexual men.
Ms Quaine’s letter states: “More men’s health ambassadors will be appointed from a range of professions, in order to have a cross-section of the population capable of representing a wide range of men”.
Strange, therefore, is it not, that you have not appointed any gay men or any men who are knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Strange too, that you have remained silent about the complaints from the gay community about your appointments.
The Prime Minister has also declined to respond to these complaints and has instead referred the letter to him to you for your response.
The words gay and HIV/AIDS do not appear anywhere in that response. The rest of the letter is just political fudging in the classical “Yes Minister” mode.
It is time you dismissed Barry Williams as one of your men’s health ambassadors, for that he is certainly not.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.
7 January 2009

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL - APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICAN STYLE!
This article was drawn to our attention by Dr Jo Harrison, and is printed here in full. It is interesting indeed that the issue of the discriminations about to be visited on gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS ageing people after a lifetime of discrimination and abuse by governments and the population at large, is about to be officially sanctioned by the government pledging to remove "some" of the discriminations.
From "The Spectator, Australia", this well-reasoned and clearly explained article on the discriminations about to be re-inflicted on the ageing in our communities gives a dark scenario indeed!:
Spare the pink and greys this well-intentioned bill
JOHN IZZARD
Rudd’s Same Sex Relations Bill is a challenge to the well-earned privacy of retired gay couples, says John Izzard
It is quite possible that 2009 might find the government of Kevin Rudd in a whole heap of trouble regarding its human rights record. Ever so keen to criticise other nations about how they treat their citizens, it seems incredible that Rudd might find himself in the same category as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Because he’s about to go gay-hunting!
Rudd’s new Same Sex Relations Bill 2008 is imminent, and while those living in the Wild Wood are ecstatic, those living along the River Bank are far from happy. It could be getting a tad ‘windy in the willows’.
The new bill gives equal treatment to same-sex couples regarding a range of laws that had been, until now, restricted to married or heterosexual couples. The changes affect things like superannuation, entitlements and legal status, and can briefly be summed up by the law’s subtitle, ‘Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws’.
The new laws were a result of lobbying by high-profile, middle- and upper-class gay activists and a recommendation by Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The main emphasis is on the legal rights of gay couples to the superannuation of their partners. The new laws are a welcome reform, and remove substantial injustices. Overall, they are good news.
While the Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws bill sprang from the noblest intentions, the Rudd government ignored advice that highlighted the moral and ethical problems this law would unleash regarding privacy, discrimination, harassment, embarrassment, anguish and financial suffering, and that it would affect tens of thousands of aged pensioners and welfare recipients.
Unfortunately, because of ministerial and bureaucratic bloody-mindedness, a small yet vulnerable section of the community is about to get it in the neck, or perhaps more crudely, get a kick up the backside.
With the passing of this bill a new wave of sexual harassment, imagined or real, is about to be undertaken by the Commonwealth’s welfare agency, Centrelink.
People living in same-sex relationships will be forced to ‘confess’ their sexual preference to bureaucrats at Centrelink in order for their welfare payments to be re-assessed, and, most likely, reduced. The most vulnerable group, affected by this intrusion into their privacy, are aged pensioners.
Any bachelor pensioner with a dog called Bruce or a Miss Marple with a pussy called Dorothy should be afraid — very afraid. Centrelink is Australia’s most powerful bureaucratic body. With 25,000 staff, it is about the same size as the Australian army and equal to the combined strength of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. The Australian Federal Police is only 6,000 strong.
Pensioners living in a same-sex relationship, the ‘pink and greys’, make up one of the most vulnerable groups in Australia. The last state in the country to remove homosexuality as a crime was Tasmania, in 1997. Until then it was possible to receive a sentence of 20 years for what Lord Arran (as quoted recently in The Spectator) described as allowing ‘…men of a certain age to be as friendly as they liked’.
The bill also has the potential to disrupt and possibly destroy the privacy of this group, many of whom have spent their lives keeping their relationships, if not secret, then at a discreet distance from the officious and the intolerant.
Many have a built-in wariness of government and investigative bodies, and the thought of dossiers and databases, containing details of their personal life and sexual preference, is repugnant and frightening.
The image of thousands of pensioners in their sixties, seventies and eighties shuffling into Centrelink offices around the country, Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs in tow, whispering across the open-plan office space, ‘Yes, I’m gay’ beggars belief. And this is a government initiative?
In effect the government is going to force same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves under threat of financial punishment or being charged with fraud. Details of their sexual preference and their partner’s details will be logged in Centrelink’s database, and dossiers kept on their status.
Centrelink denies this, but it already does this to unmarried mothers, and its ‘regulations’ give it the power to undertake such questioning.
Section 4(3) of the Social Security Regulations gives the department 14 areas under five headings which the secretary (or bureaucrat) can assess in ‘forming an opinion of the nature’ of a relationship (between two people). It includes ‘the social aspect of the relationship, any sexual relationship between the people and the nature of the commitment to each other’. What this boils down to is forced confessions of sexual preference and a creepy system of recording sexual preference onto government databases.
When I questioned Centrelink about the security of this information, I was told: ‘Customer privacy is paramount and customer records are strictly confidential.’ What Centrelink didn’t say was that, in 2006, 800 instances of ‘illegal access’ were detected. How many went undetected we do not know.
Historically, any unmarried person in Australia would have been taxed at a single person’s rate throughout their working life. They would have been denied many of the benefits (joint income, family, housing and so on) available to married couples. Having been taxed for a lifetime as a single person, all previous governments thought it reasonable that single people be paid a ‘single person’s pension’. Rudd’s Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws will change all that.
Meanwhile, back at the River Bank nursing home — apart from having to worry about incontinence, prostate cancer, lumps in the breast, type two diabetes, the upcoming hip replacement, bad food, blood pressure, to say nothing of a spot of dementia — the inmates are now having to consider exactly who their ‘same-sex partner’ might be. After all, they live at the same address.
Incidentally, this murkiness of government bureaucrats snooping into peoples’ private lives could have easily been avoided. All the government had to do was insert a ‘grandfather clause’ to exempt these pensioners who had arranged their affairs to suit existing laws. Or they could have excluded the Social Security Act from their reforms.
In a submission to a Senate inquiry last September, the National Welfare Rights Network warned: ‘There are compelling reasons to continue to treat people in same-sex relationships as “single” under Social Security and Family Assistance law. Applying Social Security means tests to people who have long been disadvantaged before the law is effectively a doubling of their experience of discrimination.’
Dr Jo Harrison, a leading gerontologist with 30 years’ experience in aged care, is staggered by the adverse effects of the legislation.
‘Colleagues in other countries are expressing to me that they are astounded to hear that a federal government is, in effect, “outing” elderly gay people,’ she says.
‘It gives one cause to wonder whether the holding of records that reveal the sexuality of people, including those in their eighties and nineties, is a serious breach of privacy regulations, anti-discrimination laws and even the UN Charter of Human Rights.’
A sad aspect of all of this is the reaction of the younger homosexual set, and the politically active ‘celebrity gays’ who have encouraged this legislation. They show little compassion or sympathy for the ‘pink and greys’. In the aggressive tribal world of gay rights there is a very much me/now attitude, which can find instant offence at perceived discrimination, yet when discrimination doesn’t affect them or their immediate circle, their diamante glasses fog up.
Only the brave — wearing hob-nailed boots and asbestos clothing — would venture into the world of pink politics. Unfortunately, the issue of pensioners privacy rights cuts across the agenda of the gay lobby, who are trying to force the introduction of gay marriage. Part of this push is the attempt to establish, in each state, a ‘gay register’, a preliminary stage to gaining full marriage status.
Obviously, elderly same-sex couples are repelled by this, particularly as many have spent a lifetime trying to shelter from discrimination, endemic in Australian culture prior to the present generation. The thought of public displays, flaunting their sexuality, is unimaginable.
Pensioners standing up for their right to privacy is the last thing the gay marriage lobby wants — hence the lack of support for the elders of their tribe.
The champions of the Same Sex Relations Bill are an exotic lot who will most likely never have to enter a Centrelink office or seek pension assistance.
In the political arena we find Senator Penny Wong and Senator Bob Brown. Wong is Australia’s first openly gay cabinet minister. Brown is Australia’s environmental wunderkind and Australia’s first openly gay Senator. A key supporter of the new law was Judge of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby.
Michael Kirby’s justified eagerness stems from his imminent retirement, and the need to sort out the superannuation issues for his lifetime partner. The push by the government was to ensure the bill passed in time for Kirby’s retirement next month.
Other players in this saga include Senator Robert McClelland, Australia’s Attorney General, who announced ‘a system of registration of personal relationships’ in April 2008, and whose department drew up the legislation.
Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission initiated the introduction of the new laws. How they will handle any complaint or legal challenge will be interesting.
Strangely, the new laws will be given Royal Assent by the new Governor General, Quentin Bryce, who, in a previous life was Queensland’s human rights and equal rights commissioner and sex discrimination commissioner for the federal human rights agency.
Perhaps Kevin Rudd should re-read The Wind in the Willows to remind him his heart should be on the River Bank, not in the Wild Wood.
While many in government see the ‘pink and greys’ as an easy target, and a chance of reducing the pension budget by about $9 million a year, they should not underestimate the bent-aged as a fighting force.
While Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs may affect mobility, their plan to use the internet to take their case to world forums is something Kevin Rudd should be very wary of. An internet campaign, high-lighting what the Australian government is up to, might not be a pretty sight.
As one old tottering ‘pink and grey’ said last week: ‘Our legs might be buggered but our fingers can still type.’
7 January 2009

This letter was written by the Coalition of Activist Lesbians (COAL) to the following politicians concerning the urgent issue of a grandfather clause on the new same-sex legislation:
To: JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc: R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au ; senator.ludwig@aph.gov.au ;
Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:18 PM
Subject: Same-sex relationships and grandfather clause
The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
From: Coalition of Activist Lesbians - Australia
PO Box 424
Thirroul, NSW 2518
www.coal.org.au
Email:coal@aapt.net.au
Re: Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reforms) Act 2008, and Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Act 2008.
COALITION OF ACTIVIST LESBIANS - AUSTRALIA (COAL) is a national community-based Non-Government Organisation. We advocate on behalf of lesbians in Australia. COAL is an accredited NGO with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as well as the Division for the Advancement of Women.
We are thankful that the government has legislated to bring about equality for lesbians and gays, however there are some who will suffer from the changes such as those on income support/social security payments eg aged pension and disability/carer payments. COAL members are currently meeting regularly to discuss the impact of the changes on individual lesbians. We have serious concerns.
We believe that legislation, policy and programs must promote substantive justice, and therefore should reflect the reality that the playing field is not level. Equal actions do not achieve equal results. Outcomes should always be considered. In every major Social Security reform for the past 15 years grandfathering clauses have been included. We do not understand why this has not occurred here.
Lesbians experience our social position and financial security as being strongly influenced by both gender and sexual orientation. Generally women earn less, have few years in the paid work force, little superannuation and have spent years caring for children and others in need. The new legislation will create hardship to a great many lesbians who have planned their living, financial, social and retirement arrangements - including mortgages - on the basis of two financially independent beings. The changes have come too suddenly for people to plan or rearrange their long-term finances and housing. COAL has case studies available.
COAL urges the Federal Government to use regulatory measures to create a grandfather clause to guarantee that lesbians and gay men already receiving income support do not lose their existing entitlements thereby jeopardising their current living arrangements.
COAL further urges the Federal Government to fund an independent advocate to assist lesbians who will be significantly affected by the new legislation. Law reform is a part of the picture but we also need resources to protect those that have already lived a vulnerable life. COAL requests a meeting with the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, to discuss these issues.
We ask that you give serious attention to this matter and take action to ensure that lesbians are not further disadvantaged under the law.
Sincerely
Sandra Hall and Wendy Suiter
On behalf of COAL-Australia
14 January 2009

The Sydney paper SX carried the following opinion piece from Vanessa Wagner on grandfathers!:
SX 14 January 2009
Opinion
Vanessa Wagner
Gay Pensioner Shmozzle............Vanessa is Appalled!
I don't know about you but I have always LOVED grandfathers. They are cute, cuddly and often handy for cleaning blocked pipes.
Those who do not embrace grandfathers are usually mean, selfish and downright ugly.
It seems Kevin 09 is not mighty fine when it comes to grandfathering or protecting our gay elders from what could seriously be outright abuse - since when did we all think dragging oldies out of the closet was kosher?
There seems to be a great bloody mess of a shmozzle of a train wreck associated with the introduction of the same sex reforms, many of which were cause to crack the bubbly.
But for lots of us, the changes mean bloody rotten, unfair, often devastating loss of income and concessions that make us wonder whether to pack the trolley and get the hell out of home NOW.
Centrelink, or is that Centrehell, will be treating those of us in same sex couples much as they have single mothers for decades - badly. Snooping, asking questions Of anyone they like, and demanding that you come out as a couple, no matter what your age or circumstances or face stiff penalties, and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Ready to wake up to clip boarded Centrelink junior in your bedroom ticking the box next to 'sexual relationship' next to her section 24 couples guidelines? No I'm not joking.
What are they thinking, what is the PM thinking, gays and lesbians who are octogenarians lining up on their scooters waiting for Centrelink to open so they can shift into gear and speed across the office floor shouting 'gay and grey' to anyone who will listen and immediately take notes?
If it wasn't so shocking it would be the stuff of comedy. Pity the Hollow Men has finished what a field day they would have had.
How the government could not have grandfathered, like they have for other groups for the past 15 years, those who would be hurt by the changes is beyond me. People who are already poor, vulnerable or elderly should not suffer the shock of complying to new regimes their lives were never set up to encounter.
There are lots of case studies, stories of elderly gays and lesbians, people living with HIV and AIDS, and many others, that show the absurd shmozzle that this situation really is.
Get a grandfather and get one NOW Mr Rudd, - and tell your colleagues Senator Ludwig, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General to get one too.
Otherwise who knows what will ensue - people without grandfathers get very angry, I know it for a fact.
Join me in telling the pollies we want grandfathering protections for our own mob, we don't want to be divided into 'haves' and 'have nots' attacking each other. That might please some, but not any of us, and certainly not me.
Send your emails to:
Kevin Rudd (contact form) via: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
The Attorney General Robert McClelland:
r.mcclelland.mp@aph.gov.au
Senator Joe Ludwig (contact form at):
http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=84N
Jenny Macklin:
jmacklin.mp@aph.gov.au
Vanessa Wagner
14 January 2009

The following letter by Noel Tovey appeared in ACT Gay on 14 January 2009 and is reproduced here in full:
An open letter to the Prime Minister
Written by Noel Tovey

Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
I write to you as an elder Indigenous man about a matter of grave concern to me.
Our old people suffered great hardship and trauma in the past and you moved to apologise for this and acknowledge that pain. You demonstrated a deep understanding of the significance of respecting elders, acknowledging mistreatment and minimising harm. We will always treasure your respectful treatment of our elders on that day of apology, and in years to come.
I am an Indigenous artist and writer and am myself 75 years of age. As an older Indigenous man who is also gay, I am deeply concerned at the suffering of gay elderly people, who, like me, have experienced severe trauma in the past due to the ignorance of those around us. I was taken away from my family in 1940. In 1951, while living on the streets in Melbourne I was charged with ‘The Abominable Crime of Buggery’. I was vilified by the Melbourne press and spent time in Pentridge Jail waiting to be sentenced. Several of my friends have committed suicide rather than live a life of fear and shame.
I have grave concerns about the ‘same sex equal treatment’ reforms and the way in which these may compound the suffering of elderly gay people, including Indigenous people. Elderly gay people are from a generation that preceded civil rights and they were subjected to shock treatment, lobotomy and other horrors. They hid from view and remain mostly hidden today. Nevertheless, they are elders of our gay community who deserve protection.
I implore you to protect these elderly people from the harm of being forced to reveal their identities, even in confidence, to officers from Centrelink. For this generation, there was no safe confidential context in which to ‘come out’. The thought of having to do so now is causing them extreme anxiety and consequent physical harm.
Please give your urgent consideration to enacting grandfathering arrangements in relation to age pensioners to protect gay elders from harm. I am mindful that had my own life story not become a fortunate one, I would more than likely be a hidden gay age pensioner myself today. I know you to be a man of compassion and I appeal to your sense of justice, which was so visible to a proud nation on the day of the apology.
I would be very happy to talk with you further about this serious matter.
Yours Sincerely
Noel Tovey
15 January 2009

We have been sent a copy of the letter Clover Moore has written on behalf of her constituents to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, about concerns relating to the new same-sex legilsation:
15 January 2009
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister
Social Security Benefits – Same Sex Couples
I write on behalf of a number of constituents who have contacted me about recent changes to the pension entitlements resulting from the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Act 2008.
Constituents who have contacted me are concerned that this legislation has the effect of removing rights to single pensions for people who were previously not eligible for benefits paid to couples. They are concerned that some pensioners and beneficiaries will lose their income or suffer significantly reduced income.
Constituents are concerned that some people over the age of 55 years in same sex relationships have planned their financial arrangements based on previous discriminatory laws, policies and practices. I share concern that lesbians or gay men who previously experienced legal and social discrimination will again be discriminated against. I understand that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Same-Sex: Same Entitlements identified this and recommended steps to prevent these impacts and protect existing rights and benefits. My constituents refer to changes to the Aged Pension for women, with a staged process that did not affect those close to the pension age, and gave time for other women to prepare for a higher pension age. They argue that a similar transitional provisions should apply to pensioners affected by these changes, and that those already receiving aged pensions be allowed to retain those benefits.
I share community concern about unintended impacts of this legislation, which was intended to provide fair treatment for people who have historically been subject to discrimination. Could you please inform me how many people are affected by this measure and what action you will take to protect them?
Yours sincerely
Clover Moore
Member for Sydney
21 January 2009

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne PO Box 1675 Preston South Vic 3072
We have noticed that the Australian Greens have been conspicuously silent over the issue of a grandfather clause in the federal government's changes to legislation allowing certain changes for same-sex relationships.
Despite the fact that this has been drawn to the attention of various Greens party members, and despite the fact that Bob Brown is a gay man who should have some understanding of the problems which are about to arise due to hasty and ill-considered legislation, there has been no discussion or announcement from the Greens.
It is a matter worthy of note that many people in the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities have supported the Greens at all levels, local government, state and federal, to help with campaigns and to help with elections and to offer support.
The Greens are in danger of losing such support by many members of these communities who feel let down at such a critical time in their lives, particularly because of the vulnerability of older GLTH people who may need assistance and care from a homophobic society.
We have had support from people who have made public statements about the "grandfather" clause issue.
You may find some of their statements of interest:
http://home.zipworld.com.au/~josken/inters7.htm
We hope to have some positive response in the very near future.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne



22 January 2009

Dear Mannie ,
I’m sorry to hear that you feel the Greens have not taken your concerns in relation to the possible disadvantages the new same-sex legislation may have on some same-sex couples.
As you would be aware, Senator Hanson-Young advocated for a 12 month transitional period for same-sex elderly couples, facilitating the changeover to the new laws. Disappointingly, this was overwhelmingly voted down by both major parties and independents.
Unfortunately with the composition of the Senate, the Greens cannot successfully move for a Grandfather Clause to be included in this legislation without the support of a major party. I recommend you contact the Attorney-General, and your local ALP member, expressing your disappointment that the Government didn’t support the 12 month clause put forward by the Greens, and request that they consider implementing a Grandfather Clause.
In addition to raising your concern with relevant Government Ministers, Senator Hanson-Young will also raise this issue directly with the Attorney-General during the first session of Parliament.
Yours sincerely,
Emily
Emily Johnson
Adviser
Parliamentary & Policy
Office of Sarah Hanson-Young
Greens Senator for South Australia
Non-sitting weeks: Ph: (08) 8231 9911¦Fax: (08) 8211 7533 Sitting weeks: Ph: (02) 6277 3429¦Fax: (02) 6277 5819



25 January 2009

Dear Emily,
You stated in your email that we would be aware of Senator Hanson-Young's advocacy of a 12 month transitional period for same-sex elderly couples.
Unfortunately, there is no way we could have been aware of this because there do not seem to have been any public statements to the media nor any media releases.
It is simply not enough for the Greens to have tried to achieve change in the senate without any of the major parties supporting it. The Attorney General has so far refused to back down from his original stance, and when some groups have tried to get statements from him at public gatherings, they have been unsuccessful.
What is necessary is for the "grandfather clause" requirement to be discussed in the public arena and to ensure that the government is getting messages loud and clear that they are about to create further discrimination against older gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS community members, many of whom have remained in the closet for most of their lives because of persecution, discrimination and other forms of abuse levelled at them over time. They are now in a most vulnerable period of their lives and are about to have Centrelink snooping into their private affairs.
This is most unsatisfactory, and the Greens need to do more to shift the government's approach to the legislative changes - separate but equal is more apartheid and is discrimination continued.
We need immediate change and we need politicians to understand the problems and to act publicly, as Clover Moore and others are doing.
If there have been grandfather clauses for other pieces of legislation during the last 15 years, even during the Howard years, why is it not possible now?
Why can't the Greens do it too?
Regards,
Mannie.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne


(Posted in Homophobia)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


MICHAEL BACKMAN CAUSES EXPLOSION IN AUSTRALIAN MEDIA 26.1.2009

17 JANUARY 2009

This article, by Michael Backman in the Business Day section of The Age newspaper of 17 January 2009 has created a storm in Melbourne, mainly from the zionists, but also from The Age management, which has gone to extraordinary lengths to distance itself from the views expressed by Backman in his column.
The trouble is, of course, that the article is not anti-semitic, as it has been accused of being, tells the situation as many thousands of us Jews around the world have been saying for ages, and touches all the raw nerves of the zionists because their beloved "democratic" state of Israel has been criticised for being similar to other butchers of human beings around the world.
Backman has not only withdrawn the link to the article from his web pages, he has also shut off the link to his contact details.
The trouble for the zionists is that there are still many of us who manage to think for ourselves, who have web pages on which we are able to publish our views, and to express our thoughts about what Israel has done with its latest assault on Gaza.
Just look at the pictures below this article - not a pretty sight, and not one we ever thought Jews would be capable of doing, after the excesses of Hitler and Stalin and others against the Jews. There are more Jews living outside Israel than in Israel, and if anti-semitism was such a threat to world Jewry, Jews would pack up in droves and flee from their countries to the "safety" of Israel, where all Jews are able to go. So why don't they go there? Just read Margaret Simons diatribe in Crikey and the responses to the discussion on the article to see how many zionists and zionist supporters like the toadies at Fairfax feel about views which criticise Israel - not before time - for its current behaviour against its Palestinian neighbours.
Try also reading Caroline Overington's Blog from the Australian too, followed by this rant from the same paper - Rupert Murdoch to the rescue!!!
And here is the grovelling, snivelling apologia from the Fairfax media to the zionist lobby in Melbourne - no wonder that the Fairfax media are going downhill - they are a shadow of their former selves, and hopefully, before long, they will disappear from view altogether!:
APOLOGY

A column by Michael Backman headlined "Israelis living high on US expense account" (BusinessDay, 17/1/09) was published in error. The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community, and regrets publication of the column.

It is the policy of The Age to correct all significant errors as soon as possible. The Age is committed to presenting information fairly and accurately

OH, BY THE WAY, the article in question has a different heading from the one quoted in the APOLOGY! The heading below may have been the online heading, but the print edition had the heading shown below this one:
So, which is correct?
Israelis are living high on US expense account
Israel must learn to live with its neighbours
By Michael Backman
The Age
January 17, 2009
THERE'S a memorable scene in the Stephen Spielberg film ‘Munich’. After the 1972 Munich Olympic Games killings of Israeli athletes, prime minister Golda Meir tells confidants she wants to show the plotters that killing Jews "is expensive". She then organises for the assassination of each of the plotters.
Today, it is Israel itself that has become expensive. Most directly, it is very expensive to the US, which subsidises and arms it.
But Israel's utter inability to transform the Palestinians from enemies into friends has imposed big costs on us all. We have paid for Israel's failure with bombs on London public transport, bombs in bars in Bali, and even the loss of the World Trade Centre towers in New York.
It is not true that these outrages have occurred because certain Islamic fundamentalists don't like Western lifestyles and so plant bombs in response. Rather, it is Israel — or more correctly the treatment of the Palestinians — that is at the nub of these events.
The world's Muslims have no head: no overarching caliph or pope equivalent exists — no single power source with whom to negotiate. Instead, Islam is remarkably decentralised. So, how extraordinary that Israel and the West have managed to unite this headless, diverse, dispersed grouping without any institutional framework, around just one issue — anger at the treatment of the Palestinians.
Otherwise dispersed groups of Muslims do seem to feel for one another in a way that Christians and others do not.
In this respect, the international Islamic community is like a body: kick it in the leg and the rest of the body feels it. Kick it hard enough and the entire body will be energised to defend itself. Pictures of distraught Gazan mothers beside the mutilated bodies of their children are circulating right now among Muslim communities worldwide. It is pictures like these that make them want to do something.
Consider Malaysia. Every citizen of this outpost of Islam has printed in his or her passport that the passport is not valid for Israel. And given that Malaysians are not allowed to hold dual citizenship, this essentially means that every Malaysian citizen, including the 40% who are not Muslims, are banned from visiting Israel.
"When will Malaysia recognise Israel?" I once asked the then finance minister. "Once Israel treats the Palestinians better," was his reply. How would he determine that? "When the Palestinians tell us," he said. It is not Israel's right to exist that is at issue.
The enmity many Muslims now feel for Israel has nothing to do with religion. The historical persecutors of the Jews have been Christians — their punishment for the death of Jesus. Jews and Muslims have lived in peace for hundreds of years in many parts of the Islamic world. When Catholic Spain and Portugal expelled its Jews, the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul invited them in. It is the Palestinian issue that has ruined all this.
Of course, today Israel must defend itself. If the residents of Bendigo started firing rockets into Melbourne you would expect Melbourne to retaliate. But what must Melbourne have done to Bendigo to make them do such a thing? Constantly slapping an opponent in the face, kicking it down to its knees, and watching it struggle in the dirt will not teach the opponent to love or respect you. It teaches only hatred.
Persecuting people does not weaken them. Israel should know that. The Jews have been persecuted for centuries. It didn't destroy them but gave them the impetus to survive.
One characteristic that is common among persecuted groups is a strong investment in education — when people's physical wealth is in danger of destruction from war and persecution one store of wealth that stays with individuals even when they must flee as refugees is education. It explains why such groups often insist on their own schools — education is too important to be entrusted to others.
Hamas did not enjoy the support of all the people of Gaza. It does now. Why does Israel keep getting it wrong?
Trekking in Nepal is fashionable among young Israelis. So much so that many shops in Kathmandu and Pokhara have signs in Hebrew. But once you get on the trekking circuit and speak with local Nepalese guides and guesthouse operators you soon discover how disliked the Israelis are. Many guesthouses in this poor country will even tell Israeli trekking groups that they are full rather than accept them. This has nothing to do with religion or politics: Nepalese people are some of the warmest, most hospitable in the world. Rather, they say that the young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means.
Israel needs to change. The Parsees of India might provide a model. The Parsees are a very tiny, very rich ethnic and religious minority. They own perhaps most of the land in central Mumbai as well as the country's largest conglomerate. And yet ordinary Indians admire and respect them. Violence against them is unthinkable.
How have they achieved this? They are not flashy or arrogant. Their overriding characteristic is a deep interest in the welfare of others. They have established hospitals, libraries, schools, museums and many other institutions and, most importantly, not for the Parsee community exclusively but for everyone. So the Parsees have peace and the Israelis do not.
And more from Crikey on 23 January 2009 on the Michael Backman article above:
Luke Hughs writes: Re. "How does The Age publish a column 'in error'? Here's how" (yesterday, item 6) Interesting to note that the introduction to Age columnist Michael Backman's own website makes the noble claim that "truth belongs to the people; not to governments. And there is only one way to write the truth." And yet Backman has in the last 24 hours removed all active links to his offending article about Israel and the Jewish people, as well as his own contact details.
Does Backman not have the courage of his own well-advertised convictions? And, curious too, that the mysterious Wikipedia contributor "Migchin" seems to have created the laudatory Backman Wikipedia page, and is religious (so to speak) about amending others' contributions. It seems Migchin is an active editor/contributor to only one Wikipedia page -- Backman's.
Alan Kennedy writes:
In all her pieces on Michael Backman's column in the Age, a column the thought police have now eradicated from our cyber memory banks, Margaret Simons proceeds from the position that the column should not have run. Her proposition is that inexperienced people allowed it to run and they should have censored it.

Now, if you don't accept that central proposition you see the matter in a different light. I, unlike many, have read the column and apart from some clumsiness about Israeli backpackers, which he never fully explained -- although on her blog Margaret Simons was able to provide a possible source for his views -- it was a well constructed column.
It was not anti-semitic and all the anti-semitic constrictions placed on it by the Jewish lobby in Australia and cheered on by The Australian are in their heads only. The controversy here is that it is controversial that the column ran. It was just part of the tapestry in this big issue.
The controversy is that The Age felt pressured to apologise and that it pulled the column from its archives. Backman's own website which contained the column was cyber attacked and he had had to pull the column down. This is the obscenity in all this.
24 JANUARY 2009

After seeing the above pictures, I am not sure why anyone should feel the need to apologise to the Melbourne or any other so-called Jewish community - and by the way, the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) and the Zionist Council of Victoria (ZCV) do NOT speak for all Jews and have no right to claim that they do!
Having said that, the two items below need to be responded to and I will do so by writing my own open letter about the whole issue.
The two items below, an article in The Age newspaper on 24 January 2009 and Michael Backman's letter in the same paper on the same day are both ridiculous.
Writer apologises for 'any hurt' to Jewish community
Jewel Topsfield
January 24, 2009
COLUMNIST Michael Backman has apologised to the Jewish community for a controversial opinion piece that blamed Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for the Bali and London bombings and the World Trade Centre attacks.
But Backman, a London-based business writer, denied he was anti-Semitic and said he believed Israel had the "absolute right to exist".
His column, which appeared in last Saturday's Age, made claims about Israeli travellers and, separately, suggested ways in which Israel needed to change.
The Jewish community responded furiously, saying the column was anti-Semitic, racist, malicious and wrong.
In a letter to The Age, Jewish Community Council of Victoria president John Searle and Zionist Council of Victoria president Danny Lamm said such commentary incited violence and hatred against Jews.
The Age apologised on Tuesday for the distress the column caused many readers, saying it was published in error and the newspaper did not endorse the views of the columnist.
In a letter to Mr Searle and Dr Lamm, Backman apologised for "any hurt and distress" caused and said he now saw that some of the "forms of words used" did not adequately explain what he intended to say.
Backman said he had a deep interest in, and respect for, Jewish culture, to the point where he named his son Shimon after Israeli President Shimon Peres.
"The accusation of anti-Semitism is itself hurtful and offensive," Mr Backman said.
Mr Searle said he had trouble accepting that Backman was incapable of choosing the words to portray what he wanted to say after many years as a writer.
Dr Lamm said he was not satisfied with Backman's apology, which did not address the problems the column had created.
"The content of his argument, blaming Israel for everything in the world, has not been withdrawn," he said.
The Age's editor-in-chief, Paul Ramadge, said the newspaper recognised immediately that the publication of the column was an error and it responded appropriately by running the apology.
"It has been suggested that, because it published such a column, The Age is itself anti-Semitic," Ramadge said. "This is a false charge. This newspaper has a long and proud history of reporting on Israel and the Middle East with fairness, sensitivity and an awareness of the complexities of the issues."


I'm no anti-Semite: Michael Backman
I AM writing about my column published in last Saturday's Age (BusinessDay 17/1) which has caused much consternation among members of the Jewish community. My main interest in writing the column was to demonstrate how Israel's military action in Gaza was playing out in Muslim communities, particularly in Asia. I can now see that some of the forms of words used did not adequately explain what I intended to say. Most particularly, they have allowed some to read into the column sentiments that I did not intend and which I do not believe.
I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for any hurt and distress that this has caused. I would also like to counter one accusation against me: that I am anti-Semitic. The reality is very different.
I believe that Israel has the absolute right to exist and that that the Jewish diaspora is one of the world's great and most talented diasporas. At a personal level, I have a deep interest in and respect for Jewish culture to the point where I named my son Shimon after Shimon Peres. The accusation of anti-Semitism is hurtful and offensive.
As with many of my columns, I fully expected some to disagree with the thrusts of my arguments, even if they had been expressed more clearly, but the threats and personal abuse that I have received — some of which have been expressed in terms of indescribable filth — have been shocking and unprecedented.
My writing style is robust and I like to take a stand. I fully expect people to disagree with me. I feel that this sort of debate is healthy in any Western democracy, and in co-operation with The Age, the column has in the past generated many interesting debates and discussions.
On this occasion, I do understand that an injudicious use of words and themes has caused upset in the Jewish community and for that I can only apologise.
Michael Backman, London


OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL BACKMAN, THE AGE, AND JEWISH ORGANISATIONS IN AUSTRALIA
The first part of this letter is in response to Michael Backman's letter of apology in The Age newspaper.
There is absolutely no reason why you should not have written what you did in your article. Views expressed there were very much what many of us Jews around the world think about the Israel-Palestine situation, but many of us, including myself, do not have forums for our views, because papers such as The Age and the Australian Jewish News (aka the Israeli zionist Times) refuse to publish what we write. Fortunately, until such time as the federal government sees fit to try and censor the web (and it is trying very hard at the moment, and will only succeed in making a bigger fool of itself than it already has!!) we are able to put our views into public arenas such as our web pages and blogs, and our views will reach an audience, even if a somewhat limited one.
The fact that we think as we do does not make us anti-semitic, nor does it make us self-hating Jews, as so many of the zionist lobby and their friends like to call us. If anything they are self-haters who are in effect in a closet of non-admission about the failings of the Israeli state. We do not live in denial about our Jewish families, parentage and ancestry and we are not ashamed of our families and friends. In my own family there were zionists of many persuasions who all believed that it was necessary for the Jews to have their own homeland so that they would no longer be persecuted.
Anti-semitism abounds everywhere, together with all sorts of other hates of other groups, and I belong to two of them, the Jewish group and the gay group, and both of them are still persecuted, discriminated against, bashed and murdered in whichever countries they happen to be living . However, you will note with interest that thousands of Jews are still living in Australia and not packing up their bags to go and live in the Jewish state of Israel, and you have to ask yourself why.
Now, Michael, let's take one of your early statements which suggests that you have upset members of the Jewish community because of the way you worded your first statements about Israel, Gaza and Muslim communities. What you said was correct and was in no way offensive or inaccurate. The people who think otherwise are those who think they have a right to speak as one voice for the Australian Jewish communities. Well, they don't have that right and we don't speak with one voice. So, an unnecessary apology.
The next accusation of your being an anti-semite is just the typical smear used by the zionists when they object to Israel being exposed for what it is - a rogue state like many others around us in the world. There is nothing in your article to suggest that you are anti-semitic, and it is objectionable of them to even have suggested it. However, before you decided to call your son Shimon after Peres, you should perhaps have read more widely on Peres and his part in the Israel of today. Perhaps Chomsky, Finkelstein, Rose, Loewenstein and others would have enlightened you about the people who have been involved with government in Israel for the last 60 years. You may then have decided on another name, unless you just happened to have liked that one.
Of course there will be people who take exception to the thrust of some of your arguments, which is what one would expect in a so-called free and open society in which we supposedly live. However, there will always be those who are unable to argue their points and resort to death threats, filth, abuse and other nasty behaviours. It is certainly very difficult to live with such unpleasantness because of one's views, and I trust that if you have had some serious threats that you have informed the police, either in Australia or the UK or both.
Ultimately the truth will prevail, but in the case of Israel and Palestine it is taking even longer, perhaps, tha it did in South Africa, the country in which I lived for 50 years. Apartheid there came to an end of sorts in 1994 with the election of Nelson Mandela, but apartheid in Israel-Palestine continues unabated and the world sits on its hands and supports Israel while mouthing platitudes about the "situation in the middle east!".
Robust debate is necessary, words do not kill, your words and themes were not injudicious, and you certainly do not need to apologise. It is they who should do the apologising for their disgraceful and unpardonable behavior. I hope you will not be deterred by this epsiode and will continue to write on this topic which so urgently needs attention from the world's leaders to help close another chapter in the behaviour of what should be democratic countries but in which some of the basic skills of democracy are sadly absent.


Now we come to The Age and its subservience to the JCCV and the ZCV who assume they speak for all Jews in Victoria and possibly all Jews in Australia. The Age newspaper has been on a slippery slope for some time editorially speaking, ever since Michael Gawenda sat in the chair, and this latest episode is as disgraceful as any other of their recent past behaviours in relation to events here and around the world.
As an inveterate letter-writer to newspapers -something I have been doing for the last 60 years - I always hope that my letters will be published. However, a search through the letters archives at The Age will reveal very few of my letters. Thank goodness for my web pages and my blog - I get to express my views, and they get printed without being censored, or not printed at all!
Jewel Topsfield of The Age reports that "The Jewish community responded furiously, saying the column was anti-Semitic, racist, malicious and wrong.
In a letter to The Age, Jewish Community Council of Victoria president John Searle and Zionist Council of Victoria president Danny Lamm said such commentary incited violence and hatred against Jews.
Just notice the tone of the statement - "-----such commentary incited violence and hatred against Jews". Since when has there NOT been violence and hatred against Jews. Certainly in the South Africa in which I grew up from 1926 till 1978, and despite the fact that Israel and South Africa worked together to develop a nuclear device, something which Israel still strenuously denies, anti-semitism was rife and continues to this day in both black and white communities. In the 30 years I have lived in Australia I have been involved with anti-semitic behaviour which has had NOTHING whatever to do with Israel and its actions in the middle east. So what is different?
Also, strangely enough, despite the fact of Israel's existence, South Africa and Australia continue to house over 100,000 Jews in each country. If the anti-semitism was so dangerous to the lives of the Jews in these countries, why do they continue to live there, when Israel is open to all Jews at all times?
John Searle and Danny Lamm and others have apparently contemplated suing The Age for publishing Backman's article. They have already made fools of themselves with their intemperate explosions. How much worse if they actually decided on legal action! And, too, Searle and Lamm continue to live in Melbourne, do they not?
Topfield's article concludes with these statements from The Age's editor-in-chief, Paul Ramadge, who said "the newspaper recognised immediately that the publication of the column was an error and it responded appropriately by running the apology.
"It has been suggested that, because it published such a column, The Age is itself anti-Semitic," Ramadge said. "This is a false charge. This newspaper has a long and proud history of reporting on Israel and the Middle East with fairness, sensitivity and an awareness of the complexities of the issues."
How pathetic - The Age has SELDOM in recent years reported on the middle east with fairness - their bias has ALWAYS been in favour of Israel, and the Palestinians are ALWAYS shown in the worst possible light. Fairness? Not in my life time!!


(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


GAZA AND THE ISRAELI SLAUGHTER IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP 10.1.2009

Dear friends,
The situation in Gaza has continued to deteriorate and nothing in our original statement has been shown to be unjustified by subsequent events. Only the numbers of dead and injured have changed to around double our figures while official excuses rehearsed by the media appear even more indefensible.
The dire humanitarian crisis caused by the Israeli blockade is now catastrophic with the ongoing military assault.
Accordingly, our campaign to gather signatures for our Statement continues and we invite you to sign in case you have not already done so. You may email us at iajv99@gmail.com or use the online form at the IAJV website:
http://www.iajv.org/sign-the-declaration/
The list currently stands at 160 and may be seen here:
http://www.iajv.org/gaza-media-statement/
The statement and signatures have generated stories in The Age and
Sydney Morning Herald and around the world:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/gaza-invasion-over-the-top-jewish-group-20090105-7aiw.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/australian-jews-protest-against-israels-action/2009/01/05/1231003936981.html
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/06/1002019/australian-jews-slam-gaza-invasion-as-abominable
Signatory and author Linda Jaivin's letter in The Australian is another important indication of dissenting Jewish opinion and the response to efforts at misrepresentation:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/such_is_jerusalems_double_jeopardy_if_it_wins_it_loses/
There is undoubted difficulty sorting through the welter of conflicting claims during this war. As before, we provide links to just a few sources that we think help give a clearer picture of the situation:
1. Brian Klug of the British Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) has a statement 'Not In My Name' in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israe-palestine-gaza
Important local Opinion articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age:
2. Sara Dowse, Shocking cynicism of a poisoned homeland:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shocking-cynicism-of-a-poisoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html
3. Dennis Altman, Road less travelled
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/road-less-travelled-20090109-7dn8.html
Other important pieces are listed at the bottom of this message.
As our list of signatures grows, we will continue to press the Jewish and wider communities and media to exert pressure on political leaders to make every effort to stop the bloodshed.
Apart from the urgent concern for Palestinians, Jews might reflect on the consequences for themselves and their traditional anxieties. Today, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that many of the letters received have been anti-Semitic, an outcome that is just as we predicted. Signing our statement is one modest way of showing that being Jewish does not mean silence or uncritical support for the State of Israel.
We look forward to your support in doing whatever we can to help end the current crisis. Towards this end, we have already received some funding but it is currently insufficient to enable us to realize our plans to bring invited visitors such as leading Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery to Australia, as well as Haaretz journalists Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, as we had indicated. Israeli peace activist and writer Jeff Halper is coming in March. If you would like to assist, our website has a facility for making donations: http://www.iajv.org/donate/
Best wishes for now,
Peter Slezak
Antony Loewenstein
Eran Asoulin
Jim Levy
More articles of interest:
1. Jim Holstun and Joanna Tinker, Israel's fabricated rocket crisis, The Electronic Intifada,
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10123.shtml
2. Already suffering from shortages of medicines and supplies from the blockade, hospitals in Gaza have been described by one foreign doctor as "drowning in bodies." The CBS News online report below is a rare glimpse of the tragedy when most media have been kept out of Gaza by the Israeli government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev6ojm62qwA
3. Amira Hass in Ha'aretz on infrastructures near breaking point.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052984.html
4. Saree Makdisi, The Electronic Intifada:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10128.shtml
5. 'We're wading in death, blood and amputees. Pass it on – shout it out'
Azmi Keshawi and James Hider, Times Online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5454671.ece


--
Independent Australian Jewish Voices
Peter Slezak
James Levy
Antony Loewenstein
Eran Asoulin
http://www.iajv.org/
































(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

BLOGNOW ARCHIVES PART 2 - 2008

GAZA SUPPORT RALLY SUNDAY 4 JANUARY 2009 30.12.2008


Rally for
GAZA
Stop the massacre!
End the siege now!
No to Israel’s war crimes!

Rally Sunday Jan 4
2pm
State Library of Victoria
cnr Swanston St and La Trobe St, Melbourne

Over 300 people have been killed and more than 1600 wounded since Saturday 27 December, when Israel launched air strikes against the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip. 

The air strikes come on top of the Israeli imposed blockade which has stopped adequate fuel, food, and medical supplies from reaching the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza.


Rally in solidarity with the people of Gaza, who are standing steadfast in the face of these atrocities.
Please bring placards and banners
For more info call 0439 454 375 or 0418 819 548

(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)





OPEN LETTERS TO PRIME MINISTER KEVIN RUDD AND HEALTH MINISTER NICOLA ROXON 10.12.2008

OPEN LETTERS TO PRIME MINISTER KEVIN RUDD AND HEALTH MINISTER NICOLA ROXON
28 November 2008

Name: Mr Mannie (Emanuel) De Saxe

Email Address: josken1_at_pacific_net_au

Postal Address: 2/12 Murphy Grove Preston Vic 3072 Australia

To Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

Subject: Roxon's health ambassadors

Comment: Health Minister Roxon appointed six men as health ambassadors, showing yet again her misjudgement in her portfolio. Two of the men are known notorious homophobes, one of whom has used an expression used by anti-semites who pretend to like Jews by saying "some of my best friends are Jews". He has said "some of my best friends are gays".
Homophobia is rampant in our communities leading to abuse, violence and murder of gays, lesbians,transgenders and people living with HIV/AIDS (GLTH communities).
Two of these six men belong to a group called the Fatherhood Foundation who published a paper entitled "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters."
While the ALP works on futile attempts at net censorship, this sort of hate preaching on the web will continue unabated.
The ALP is not known for its friendship with the GLTH communities and the support it showed for the Howard Marriage bill in 2004 is an indication of its approach. Discrimination against these communities is writ large and continues unabated.
Not only should Roxon be removed from the ministry, but the second of the homophobes whom she has left as one of her ambassadors must be removed immediately.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 December 2008

To Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon

It seems that although you have got rid of one of the homophobic appointees as health ambassadors, the other, Barry Williams, is still there.

As far as members of the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities are concerned, this situation is very unsatisfactory, and we will pursue the matter until homophobia is rooted out of those of us who are affected by this ongoing campaign of hatred waged by so many in the community.

We have also contacted the Prime Minister about the issue, and we are still waiting for a response from him.

Barry Williams is a homophobe and if he says he didn't read the "Gender Matters" document when he signed it, he should have, or else he is just trying to hide his homophobia in order to retain this appointment. What did he think a document containing 21 hate clauses consisted of?

We trust we will be informed as soon as possible that Barry Williams is no longer a men's health ambassador.

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated response.

Thank you for your email to Nicola Roxon MP, Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing.

Due to the large volume of emails received, we are unable to acknowledge each email personally. However, we will reply to each email. Response times depend on the complexity of the issues raised.

If you live in the electorate of Gellibrand and have not included your name, address and any other relevant contact details in your email, please provide them.

Your email is important to us and will be dealt with in due course. However if you require any further information, please contact us on (02) 6277 7220. For electorate and local constituent matters, please telephone the Gellibrand electorate office on (03) 9687 7355.

If your email relates to an invitation or media enquiry for the Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing it will be forwarded to the relevant staff member.

The Department of Health and Ageing have a number of National Information Lines for further information on a range of topics. They are available here - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-infoline.htm

Thank you again for taking the time to email Nicola Roxon MP, Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing.

(Posted in Homophobia)

1 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link


NOEL WASHINGTON, THE ABCC AND THE ALP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26.11.2008

John Vorster, P.W.Botha and F.W.de Klerk would have been very proud of the Howard/Rudd governments' legislation to control the trade unions and to impose draconian restrictions on them and turn them into criminals.
The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) has powers that the controllers of the anti-terror legislation can only look upon with envy and wish they had the same dictatorial control.
Below is the flyer for a protest rally to be held outside the Melbourne Magistrate's Court on Tuesday 2 December, and a draft letter for people to copy and send to the Alternative Liberal Party government in Canberra, protesting at the ABCC's methods of operation.
Star chamber operations should have no place in a country such as Australia, but the sorts of legislation which saw the birth of the ABCC as one of the outcomes of the Cole Royal Commission into the building industry is just one of a long line of punitive pieces of legislation aimed at destroying the trade union movement in Australia since Malcolm Fraser became Prime minister in 1975.
The trend has been followed by every succeeding government from that time to this.




(Posted in Australian politics and politicians)

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link




SENATOR CONROY AND INTERNET CENSORSHIP 11.11.2008

11 November 2008
OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR THE HON. STEPHEN CONROY, MINISTER FOR BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Censorship has failed in the past, is failing now, and will fail in the future. When people want material that governments decide is not in the communities’ interest for them to have, people will work out methods to circumvent the laws which stop them having that material.
In the interests of pointing out to you the futility of attempts to censor the Internet, you should know that the South African apartheid censors, in their ignorance and stupidity, censored a book called ‘Black Beauty”. After the outcry at their crass stupidity, the book was ultimately unbanned.
Political and fiction and non-fiction books and similar material in the form of magazines and journals were taken into South Africa from Mozambique and Swaziland, where such material, particularly in the English language, were not banned.
Australia has a long history of censorship, and most of the attempts of censors here have failed because people are able to obtain items which governments are determined to prevent them from having.
There are so many loopholes in all attempts at censorship that one wonders why governments persist in behaving like big brother and/or nanny.
If you want to control what is available in Australia on the Internet you will have to ultimately close down people’s ability to have the Internet, whether it is broadband or any other way of receiving what is out there.
It may be a good idea for would-be censors to read Antony Loewenstein’s recently published book, “The Blogging Revolution” and see what happens in totalitarian states around the world. Loewenstein’s latest article in The Age online (10 November 2008) included below gives a very good illustration of the hypocrisy of politicians in the realm of censorship. In fact, Kevin Rudd outdid himself yet again today, 11 November 2008, when he spoke about remembering those who have died defending their countries, and that the 21st century should be one of peace and not war. This is the same politician who is sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight in what has been labelled by those who are involved in fighting there as unwinnable.
The same may be said of your attempts at filtering what may or may not be available on the Internet – you are fighting an unwinnable war, and the sensible approach would be to quit while you are still ahead – if ahead you actually are!
And most interesting of all is the fact that violence is censored in Australia far, far less than anything with the word “sex” in it or relating to it. What are you going to do about web sites which discuss sexual matters in all their shapes and forms – ban them all from the Internet??
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity Melbourne
PO Box 1675
Preston South
Vic 3072

Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship
• Antony Loewenstein
• November 10, 2008
BEFORE this year's Beijing Olympic Games, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd chastised the Chinese authorities for blocking full access to the internet for the assembled world media: "My attitude to our friends in China is very simple", he said. "They should have nothing to fear by open digital links with the rest of the world during this important international celebration of sport."
Although Rudd expressed no concern for the average Chinese web user being unable to view tens of thousands of banned websites, his intervention was nevertheless a welcome call for transparency and greater democracy.
But now the Rudd government is working towards implementing an unworkable filtering process in Australia that suggests a misguided understanding of the internet and worrying tendency to censor an inherently anarchic system.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told Radio National's Media Report recently that the aim of the project is to "protect Australian families and kids from some material that is currently on the net . . . such as child pornography and ultra-violent sites".
Conroy tried to assure a sceptical interviewer that although the idea had been ALP policy for years, "we are committed to work with the industry to see if it is technically feasible".
He further claimed that similar kinds of filtering already exist in UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand and "there has been no detrimental effect on internet speed or performance".
But Conroy is and ignoring the wider social, moral and political implications of the issue. A number of politicians, including Family First Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon, have advocated blocking online gaming sites and general pornography sites. What next?
It is not hard to imagine a push to block sites that allegedly "support" terrorism. Take Hamas, the democratically elected party in Palestine and yet regarded as a terrorist group by much of the West. For many individuals around the world, myself included, Hamas is not a terrorist entity and should be engaged. But will over-zealous politicians make it illegal to view the organisation's websites?
This is a feasible scenario, as US Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman this year successfully pressured YouTube owners Google to remove videos from "Islamist terrorist organisations".
Many in the Australian gay community are equally concerned about the current proposals. The Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE), which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, has called on the Rudd government to guarantee "websites will not be accidentally filtered out purely because they contain the words poof, fag or dyke".
Technologically, the ability for internet service providers to successfully censor banned websites is arguably impossible. Three of the country's leading players, Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett, have all spoken on the record about the difficulties of implementing ISP-level filtering.
Hackett imagines a future where the government mandates a blacklist of IP addresses that by law an ISP is not permitted to serve to a customer. "Two problems with that", he argues. "One is collateral damage. What if that IP address is a virtual host with 2000 web sites on it and only one of them doesn't follow the government's morality? The other (problem) is, what if it's done by mistake? (What) if the IP address is just straight out wrong? Another obvious (problem) is that the internet is full of anonymous proxies. None of this stuff actually works."
Numerous programs such as TOR are used by users in repressive nations to communicate anonymously and without detection and are likely to be used by people in Australia.
Perhaps most worryingly, should we feel comfortable with the idea of privately owned ISPs being the gatekeeper of administering the law of permissible and blocked websites? Telstra's Milne rightly believes it should be the police implementing the rules of the land.
Furthermore, has the government even considered the massive financial burden on ISPs, especially the smaller ones, forced to play the role of Big Brother for Rudd's obsession with "protecting the children"? It seems clear that the will of small, unrepresentative Christian groups, including the Australian Family Association and the Australian Christian Lobby, are increasingly able to dictate social policy to Rudd ministers with little transparency as to their real role and influence.
The government completed a closed trial of web filtering products at a Telstra laboratory in Tasmania in June. The results were largely negative and found that most filters could not identify illegal or inappropriate content. It is not surprising that many industry insiders fear the government's moves are little more than populism dressed up as courageous social policy.
Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said recently that Rudd's "model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."
This is certainly unnecessary rhetoric - I examine a host of authoritarian regimes in my book The Blogging Revolution, including Iran, and the Islamic Republic's censorship is far more extreme and life threatening than anything proposed by Rudd. But Jacobs is right to raise the alarm about the path Australia appears to be embracing.
Free speech is never absolute in any Western country but vigorous public debate should be the pre-cursor to any profound shift in freedom of the internet. History teaches us that governments have an unhealthy tendency to ban material deemed inappropriate for groups allegedly exposed. In this day and age, young children are seen as the most vulnerable. Cynicism is the only healthy response.
Antony Loewenstein is the author of The Blogging Revo-lution, published by Melbourne University Press.


(Posted in Censorship)



GENDER MATTERS - HOMOPHOBIC MURDERERS 25.10.2008

The following report from MCV - Issue 407 dated 23 October 2008 should be a wake-up call to the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities in Australia.
For too long the complacency of members of these communities is evidence of how they have taken for granted the rights which they now have accorded to them in legislation in federal, state and territory jurisdictions. Activism is a thing of the past, "passe" to so many. "We don't do activism any more, we don't need to".
Not only is there still a long way to go to achieve equal rights, but it is very easy for those rights which we have achieved after years of struggle to be overturned at the stroke of a pen.
Here is the report:

Anti-gay threat emerges



Written by Peter Hackney
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
A coalition of organisations espousing the interests of ‘natural biological families’ has released a list of anti-gay policy proposals and represents a new threat to GBLTI communities, say gay activists.
Gender Matters, a coalition of 17 groups and organisations, has released a list of demands on its website, www.gendermatters.org.au. They include:
• That marriage be “forever preserved as the voluntary exclusive union of one man and one woman”;
• That adoption be restricted to heterosexual couples;
• That IVF and other reproductive technologies are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals;
• A ban on same-sex civil unions and registers.
The group wants homosexuality registered as a medical condition and public funds committed to “curing” homosexuality, which they term “gender disorientation pathology”.
Last Thursday, it flexed its political clout with a submission to the Senate hearing on the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Rodney Croome said Gender Matters is couching its homophobia in a new way, in terms of gender differentiation.
“Ordinarily, I would dismiss this kind of material as anti-gay hatred at the margins of the political debate,” Croome said.
“But by framing their rhetoric in terms of gender differentiation, they will strike a chord with more people.”
Australian Marriage Equality also expressed concern, but said it showed anti-gay groups were feeling threatened.
Warwick Marsh, the Wollongong-based founder of Gender Matters, refused to answer questions when contacted by MCV.
GENDER MATTERS - HOMOPHOBIC MURDERERS
The 17 groups involved in this nefarious coalition must get as much public exposure as possible and they must be vigorously opposed by as many groups and individuals as possible.
Blog about them, put them on your web pages, expose their murderous intent at every opportunity, and ensure you work to see them closed down, if necessary by federal, state and territory attorneys- general under anti-discriminatory legislation. It is long past time that exemptions continue to be granted to these groups with their murderous statements which lead inevitably to bashings, assaults, bullyings and ultimately murder by the thugs influenced by their wicked teachings! Time for governments to act and act NOW!!!!!
It should be noted that this homophobic group has taken the name of a gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV-AIDS help group in the UK and used it with the deliberate intent of confusing people who may already be confused about sexuality and its problems and difficulties. This group is setting out to subvert any and every body who is supportive of these communities. Their religion-based mumbo jumbo must be exposed and stamped on before its viciousness takes hold of people who are already prejudiced before even understanding the basics of sexuality.

(Posted in Homophobia)



NANNY CONROY AND NANNY RUDD CENSOR THE INTERNET! 24.10.2008

THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD:
Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics
Asher Moses
October 24, 2008 - 7:00AM
The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its
controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will break
the internet while doing little to stop people from accessing illegal
material such as child pornography.
Internet providers and the government's own tests have found that
presently available filters are not capable of adequately distinguishing
between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up
to 86 per cent.
Documents obtained by the Herald show the office of the Communications
Minister, Stephen Conroy, tried to bully ISP staff into suppressing
their criticisms of the plan.
Senator Conroy has since last year's election victory remained
tight-lipped on the specifics of his $44.2 million policy but, grilled
by a Senate Estimates committee this week, he said the Government was
looking at forcing ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.
The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of,
would block all "illegal material". Senator Conroy has previously said
Australians would be able to opt out of any filters to obtain
"uncensored access to the internet".
The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed
inappropriate for children, such as pornography.
But neither filter tier will be capable of censoring content obtained
over peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which account for an estimated
60 per cent of internet traffic.
Senator Conroy said Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand had all
implemented similar filtering systems. However, in all cases,
participation by ISPs was optional and the filtering was limited in
scope to predominantly child pornography.
Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic
Frontiers Australia said: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this
model involves more technical interference in the internet
infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most
repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."
Critics of the ISP-level filtering plan say software filters installed
by the user on their PC, which are already provided by the government
for free at netalert.gov.au, are more than adequate.
Mark Newton, an engineer at Internode, has heavily criticised the
Government and its filtering policy on the Whirlpool broadband community
forum, going as far as saying it would enable child abuse.
He said the plan would inevitably result in significant false positives
and degrade internet speeds tremendously. Those views were subsequently
widely reported by technology media and blogs.
Although Newton identified himself as an employee of Internode - as
Whirlpool's rules stipulate - he always maintained his views were
personal opinions and not necessarily shared by the company.
On Tuesday, a policy advisor for Senator Conroy, Belinda Dennett, wrote
an email to Internet Industry Association (IIA) board member Carolyn
Dalton in an attempt to pressure Newton into reining in his dissent.
"In your capacity as a board member of the IIA I would like to express
my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of
message. I have also advised [IIA chief executive] Peter Coroneos of my
disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour ," the email,
seen by the Herald, read.
It is understood the email was accompanied by a phone call demanding
that the message be passed on to senior Internode management.
Newton said he found the bullying "outrageous" and Senator Conroy was
"misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a
private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views".
A spokesman for Senator Conroy said Newton's accusation that the
Government was promoting child abuse was "disappointing and
irresponsible". He said the purpose of the email was "to establish
whether Mr Newton's views were consistent with the IIA position".
Ironically, Senator Conroy has himself accused critics of his filtering
policy of supporting child pornography - including Greens Senator Scott
Ludlam in Senate Estimates this week.
ACMA released a report in July detailing the results of laboratory tests
of six unnamed ISP-level filters.
Only one of the filters tested resulted in an acceptable speed reduction
of 2 per cent or less. The others caused drops in speed between 21 per
cent and 86 per cent.
The tests showed the more accurate the filtering, the bigger the impact
on network performance.
However, none of the filters were completely accurate. They allowed
access to between 2 per cent and 13 per cent of material that should
have been blocked, and wrongly blocked between 1.3 per cent and 7.8 per
cent of websites that should have been allowed.
"Why would you want to damage the performance and utility of the
internet and not actually keep the bad stuff out anyway," said John
Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode.
In Senate Estimates, Senator Ludlam expressed concern that all sorts of
politically-sensitive material could be added to the block list and
otherwise legitimate sites - for example, YouTube - could be rendered
inaccessible based on content published by users.
"The black list ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the
list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material,
material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the
internet," he said.
Despite this, the Government - which distanced itself from the tests by
saying they were initiated by the previous government - is pressing
ahead with live trials of the filtering system and will shortly seek
expressions of interest from ISPs keen to participate.
and this item comes from the ABC:
The high price of internet filtering
By Michael Meloni
Posted 1 hour 18 minutes ago
Labor's high-speed National Broadband Network is a step in the right
direction, but their plan to block inappropriate websites by forcing
ISPs to install content filtering systems will slow down internet access
and raise the cost of service.
Unlike website filters installed on your personal computer, filters
installed at your ISP need to check hundreds of thousands of websites
and then decide whether they're pornographic or inappropriate. As it
stands, no technology capable of doing this accurately exists. Current
filters are of varying accuracy and severely affect internet performance
- and the Government knows it.
A recent ACMA report on ISP filtering products showed that all of the
products tested degraded Internet performance, with two of them reducing
speed by more than 75 per cent. One filter reduced network speed by only
2 per cent, but it was one of the least accurate at identifying
inappropriate and illegal websites. It also mistakenly blocked many
innocent sites. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, seemed oblivious to this and
hailed the trial a success.
Senator Conroy insists mandatory filtering will protect children from
violent and pornographic content online, but that's simply untrue. It's
rare that surfing the web will unwillingly land you head first in
illicit pictures and movies. On most occasions you need to be searching
for risqué material to find it and that won't change with a filter in
place. Nor will access to it as circumvention can be easily achieved
within minutes. For those occasions when you do accidently stumble
across pornography, there's no guarantee a filter would block it anyway.
As for banning websites that are 'inappropriate', is the Government
really in the best position to decide what that is? Does inappropriate
include information on sexual health, breast-feeding, drugs and
abortion? The one size fits all approach of filtering at ISP level
causes problems because young children, teenagers and adults often use
the same family computer. Material inappropriate in one household might
be appropriate in another, but the Government's scheme doesn't allow for
any fine-tuning. It's a poor substitute for the discretion and attention
of parents.
A combination of supervision, education and empowerment is the only way
we can be sure children are equipped to navigate the web responsibly.
Arguments that filtering is worth trying, even if it doesn't work, show
complete disregard for the well being of young Australians and their
future standing as technology leaders.
Meanwhile, extra ISP infrastructure needed to meet the burden of
filtering will drive up the cost of your internet service bill. Network
engineer Mark Newton says ISPs will also require more call centre staff
to deal with angry customers who can't access websites.
Large operators may be able to absorb these costs, but small ISPs risk
going under and consumer choice becoming limited. As a matter of fact,
all businesses risk losing out under the Government's plan. Given the
rate the tested filters block innocent websites, a whopping 10,000 out
of every one million at best, it won't take long for sites belonging to
the local plumber or GP to be mistaken and banned. Any loss of income
due to website downtime is inexcusable and it's still not clear if or
how we'll be able to appeal a decision.
There's also the issue of filtering HTTPS web traffic - the protocol
used for online banking transactions. Five of the filters tested for
ACMA could intercept HTTPS traffic, a worrying prospect if the
Government intends to use one for blocking secure websites that are
inappropriate or illegal. A filter inspecting secure banking data and
online purchases for unsavory content effectively opens the door to
fraudsters and undermines the entire e-commerce process.
To provide a safer environment for children online we need to focus on
areas posing a real threat to young Australians like cyber-bullying,
identity theft and online predators. Filtering does nothing to reduce
these risks. Just like we educate children about staying safe outside,
we need to educate them about staying safe online. Walk them through it
just like we'd walk them to the park. If that means educating parents
unfamiliar with the Internet as well, then let's do it.
Despite all the shortcomings in the ACMA report, the Government is
progressing to live ISPs trials using real customers. Senator Conroy and
his department are unwilling to acknowledge that ISP filtering is
unworkable and find themselves in a position where it seems hard to turn
back, though not impossible. Instead his office prefers to brand those
who object as presenting extreme views or equating freedom of speech
with watching child pornography. I'm sure Labor's time would be better
spent implementing their other cyber-safety promises aimed at actually
benefiting children.
To make matters worse, Senator Conroy's office now says filters will be
mandatory for all internet users.
Australians will pay for ISP filtering with decreased performance and
higher charges, but to limit the free flow of information that makes the
Internet the most valuable communication and education tool of our time,
means we'll pay a much larger price in the long term.

(Posted in Censorship)



BILL HENSON AND THE THREE POLITICAL MONKEYS 9.10.2008

At the height of the South African apartheid regime's censorship efforts, those enlightened political guardians of the morals of us degenerates censored Black Beauty, because, without ever having heard of the book, let alone read it! - they concluded the story would have to have been about a black woman who was a beauty, and therefore the book would have to be off limits to white people (read men!!) and must also be pornographic!!
Now we have a bunch of Australian politicians who are doing the same with photographic art and they are endeavouring to create a climate of fear and extreme censorship as they decide that Bill Henson's photographic art is pedophilia disguised as art - and what do we as lay people know about art???
Only politicians know and they must safeguard our morals - where have we heard all this cristian morality crap before??

SEE EVIL, SPEAK EVIL, HEAR EVIL - THE POLITICIANS ARE THE EXPERTS ON EVERYTHING!
(Posted in Censorship)



BRAD COHEN mcenroebecker@hotmail.com Subject: palestine 5.10.2008

On Sunday 5 October 2008 this email was sent to me.
The pathetic sender remains anonymous because of course he/she is too afraid to enter into any meaningful discourse on any of the items with which this coward has abused me.
He/she is typical of those who hide behind their anonymity because thay havn't got the courage of their convictions. It is easier to be abusive, and think they are great heroes of the zionist state by counter-arguing about arabs and Iranians.
It is really quite tragic when one views the situation in the middle east and this is what one gets!

de saxe, you have had too many stiff arab cocks up your herpes backside.

why dont you write about how iran has murdered over 5000 homosexuals since 79, and how many mardi gras are held in the middle east outside israel.

you are a whigeing self hating brain damaged queer.



(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)



SEXUAL APARTHEID AS INSTITUTED BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS 2.10.2008


DEECEE AND SAM USED TO EAT TOGETHER, AS CAN BE SEEN BY THE PICTURE ABOVE, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ENFORCING SEXUAL APARTHEID ON ITS GAY, LESBIAN AND TRANSGENDER CITIZENS, SO THEY NOW HAVE TO EAT IN "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" FACILITIES AT OTHER ENDS OF THE DINING ROOM AND KITCHEN.



(Posted in Homophobia)



PETER STOKES HOMOPHOBIC ATTACKS IN MCV AND SUNDAY AGE ANSWERED 29.9.2008


LETTER TO THE SUNDAY AGE IN RESPONSE TO YET ANOTHER PETER STOKES/SALT SHAKERS HOMOPHOBIC OUTBURST (PUBLISHED ON 28 SEPTEMBER 2008):
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne,
2/12 Murphy Grove,
Preston,
Vic 3072,
Phone: 03 9471 4878
Peter Stokes (the Salt Shakers man, 21/09/08) makes the astonishingly unsubstantiated statement "Even homosexual activists are now admitting that homosexuality is not genetic or innate but a preference."
Gay and lesbian activists with which we have associated over the last 30 years certainly do not "admit" to such views. Rather, we have long been arguing for equality after all these years of sexual apartheid to which we have been subjected, and the Philip Island Adventure Resort is another such organisation guilty of this "sin".
The Sunday Age letter-writers have not mentioned that religious organisations are exempt from anti-discrimination laws, and exempt from paying taxes on the properties they own throughout Australia.
If such was not the case, this resort would be forced to accept those it deems "untermenschen" and gays, lesbians and transgender (GLT) people would no longer feel excluded and unwelcome.
Your letter-writers (21/09/2008) who are so offended at what some activists have said that they have lost sight of the fact that it is the religious organisations who are offensive in their open homophobia, are probably unaware of the fact that many young GLT people are often driven to commit suicide, particularly in regional and rural areas, too intimidated to confess their sexuality, and having nowhere to turn.
Gays are not currently a "fashionable group", are not able to "persecute" the well-funded, tax-exempted, anti-discrimination- exempted religious groups and only want what the heterosexual community takes for granted - equality under the law, denied them by most governments throughout Australia.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO MCV IN RESPONSE TO PETER STOKES/SALT SHAKERS HOMOPHOBIC OUTBURST (PUBLISHED ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2008):
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
PO Box 1675
Preston South
Vic 3072
Phone: 03 9471 4878
Peter Stokes writes about tolerance (MCV 18/09/2008), but religious
organisations have generally shown ongoing homophobic
intolerance to the gay, lesbian and transgender (GLT) communities.
Religious organisations throughout Australia are tax-exempt, and
exempt from anti-discrimination legislation.
GLT communities demand equality and not a continuation of the
ongoing sexual apartheid which condemns us to be 2nd or 3rd class
citizens because of the discrimination meted out to us because of
people's religious beliefs.
The bigotry practised by religious communities drives many young
GLT people to suicide, particularly in regional and rural areas,
because they are intimidated into silence about their sexuality for
fear of persecution and discrimination, to say nothing of bashings,
verbal abuse and worse.
On the 10th anniversary of the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in
the USA we should not forget the homophobia propagated by
religions in our communities which culminate in this sort of outcome.
Philip Island Adventure Resort is discriminating, is tax-exempt and
anti-discrimination-legislation-exempt and should be forced to
reverse its decision.
We demand equality, not differentiation, and we demand it of
governments NOW!
And, Stokes, homosexuality is not a "personal preference". It really is
time you educated yourself to the realities of the world, not to your
outmoded ideas of "personal preferences". Peter Tatchell is not the
spokesperson for the GLT communities and his views are HIS views.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne





(Posted in Homophobia)



MICHAEL BURD, SECURITY FOR ALL WHEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE BECOME ONE STATE! 19.9.2008

Michael Burd of Toorak railing against those involved in the Australian terrorist trial need look no further than his beloved Israel for the solution! His letter to The Age on 19 September 2008 is below, but it really is time Burd of Toorak remembered that terrorism saw its origins in 1948 with the birth of Israel in Palestine and apartheid in South Africa, the infamous system now used in everyday practice by the Israelis who worked so closely with the apartheid regime in security matters and who developed nuclear bombs together!

It is difficult to comprehend, even if those on trial are or were guilty or otherwise, why allegations of mistreatment of the defendants should not be investigated. The 12 men were, by all accounts, treated in the same way as American prisoners in their "justice" system - abuse, maltreatment, chained, incarcerated like animals.

And Burd of Toorak talks of human rights!!!!!!! - and who, exactly, are the innocent men and women he talks about?
The price of security
NOW that the terror trial is over we are going to be inundated with the alleged allegations of mistreatment of the terror defendants (The Age, 18/9).
Unfortunately we are fighting a war that was forced upon us. There is no precedent for such a war against people who wear no uniforms, hide among us, target civilians; against an enemy that has no specific grievance or outcome that can be ever satisfied. Even the outdated Geneva Convention does not allow for this new style of warfare against civilians.
So there will be innocent casualties whose human rights may be affected along the way. Fortunately the men who have been found not guilty will live to talk about it and may even be financially compensated for their inconvenience. However, the innocent men, woman and children killed by terrorist attacks worldwide will not.
Michael Burd, Toorak

(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)



VICTORIA FINLAY AND UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES REMAIN SILENT 18.9.2008

Peter McGregor died in January 2008. The University of New South Wales was approached to make a posthumous apology for their behaviour in relation to the treatment of Peter at the Gilbert and Tobin forum (note the word forum) where he was not only ejected by the organisers, but had charges laid against him.
Peter never recovered from the blow at a time when his health was failing and he knew the inevitable consequences of his illness.

His family and friends were entitled to some recognition from the university of its failure to deal with the issue and a resolution to put the matter to rest. The university has failed as it has failed so many times over the last few years on other issues.

This does not mean that the matter has been forgotten about, it means it will be dragged into the open again and again until the university responds satisfactorily.

What is below here is what correspondence took place earlier in the year.

18 APRIL 2008:
No response yet from the University of New South Wales who regard this matter as closed, but Peter McGregor's friends and supporters don't quite see it that way. The disgusting behaviour of that university and its Gilbert and Tobin Law centre are as reprehensible as ever and have made no move to make amends to Peter's partner and everybody else involved.
17 MARCH 2008
Mannie De Saxe,

I am acknowledging receipt of your emails of 18 January and 11 March 2008. The University regards this matter as closed and will not respond to any further correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria Finlay
Executive Officer to the Vice-Chancellor
Office of the Vice-Chancellor
Level 1, Chancellery
The University of New South Wales
UNSW Sydney
NSW 2052
Ph: 612 9385 3803 Fax: 612 9385 1949

josken@zipworld.com.au
11/03/2008 11:22 PM
To V.Finlay@unsw.edu.au
cc Subject (Fwd) (Fwd) Peter McGregor
Please acknowledge receipt of this email and advise when a response may be expected.
Mannie De Saxe
----------------------------------------------------------- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: Self
To: V.Finlay@unsw.edu.au
Subject: (Fwd) Peter McGregor
Date sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:16:08 +1100
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: Self
To: V.Finlay@unsw.edu.au
Subject: Peter McGregor
Date sent: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:08:09 +1100
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne
PO Box 1675
Preston South
Vic 3072
ATTENTION VICTORIA FINLAY
The fact that Peter McGregor died on 11 January 2008 does not mean that the matter between him and the University is now closed.
More than ever, it is necessary for the University to demonstrate that it is not a university in name only, but that the meaning of the word university is still understood to be that of an institution which upholds the traditions of a seat of learning.
The University, the Gilbert and Tobin Centre, the Law Faculty and the people involved in the events leading to the arrest of Peter McGregor need to make public apologies which are placed in the media in prominent positions so that the community is made aware of of the injustices of the actions taken to have Peter McGregor arrested and ignominiously thrown out of the University.
Until such time as this is done, the matter will not be laid to rest.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Your email to the Vice-Chancellor
From: "Victoria Finlay" Add to Address B
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:59:16 +1100
Dear Mr McGregor,
I am responding to your email to the Vice-Chancellor. I understand that the police prosecution has been withdrawn. The University regards the matter as closed and will not respond to any further correspondence regarding the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria Finlay
Executive Officer to the Vice-Chancellor Office of the Vice-Chancellor
Level 1, Chancellery The University of New South Wales
UNSW Sydney NSW 2052
Ph: 612 9385 3803 Fax: 612 9385 1949
(Posted in Australian politics and politicians)



Page 1 of 14
Last Page | Next Page



ACTIVIST KICKS BACKS - AKB Home | Profile | Archives | Friends


Anti-censorship, anti-homophobia, anti-religious right fanaticism, anti-zionism, pro-human rights for ALL!

ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA - LETTER TO THE AGE NEWSPAPER 16.9.2008

I really should know better, but I suppose it is the habit of a lifetime and one not easily broken. My latest letter to The Age concerned two taboo topics for the Victorian government, abortion and euthanasia - look how quickly they killed off the proposed bill recently on euthanasia - althought the abortion bill may actually get through! Here is my latest letter:
My father died at the age of 31 in excrutiating agony from
Myasthenia Gravis. When he died in 1930 there was nothing
available to treat this disease. His mother died at the age of 25 from a
botched abortion. She virtually bled to death. This happened in 1902 in
Melbourne. These events are of course not un-linked as they had
consequences for all concerned.
At 82 I am fortunate not to have had any life-threatening diseases or
illnesses. The same can not be said for countless friends and relatives
over the years.
Should my circumstances change I will do everything in my power to
ensure that I am not dictated to by any religious right or government
organisation as to how I am to die. It is my choice and I will choose.
If euthanasia is required, so shall it be.
As to abortion, women have suffered, and continue to suffer, at the
hands of those moralists who would have a say in their situations.
Women alone shall decide their fates and it is time the legality of
these issues be put to rest by legislative decisions now!
Mannie De Saxe

(Posted in Abortion and Euthanasia)



IEMMA, WATKINS, SARTOR, COSTA - GONE BUT NOT ENOUGH OF THE OLD GANG! 11.9.2008

Morris Iemma and some of the worst members of his government have departed, and New South Wales should be able to heave a collective sigh of relief.
Unfortunately not enough of them have gone, and there are still some of the old guard who are in the new cabinet of a new and unknown premier, ostensibly of the ALP "Left", if anyone can envisage such an animal. The trouble is already apparent by the choice of the deputy premier in the person of Carmel Tebbutt, who is still part of the old school, and has not been seen as one in the NSW government to inspire confidence.
Hopefully the Victorian premier might learn a little about the arrogance of the people who were in the NSW government and also those in the WA government, but the ALP never learns and goes from weakness to weakness in its endeavours to govern for big business but never for the people who elected them.
Both New South Wales and Victoria have governments which have not learnt that their states need public transport urgently, better health and education systems, and all the surpluses accumulated by all the governments around the country because of the goods and services taxes imposed on us by the Coalition and the non-lamented departed Democrats.
We deserve better, but most voters haven't woken up to the fact that these governments can be challenged by making sure that there are not just two main political parties in Australia.
The Greens may not be the best answer, but they would at least provide a challenge.
Roll on the Council elections in Victoria in November 2008 where the gerrymander has been ended for most councils and we may see the ALP no longer dominating much of local government politics.

(Posted in Australian politics and politicians)



MARK RABICH HAS GENDER REASSIGNMENT SO KNOWS ABOUT ABORTIONS? 6.9.2008

unbelief.org
Majority view no yardstick on rights
I HAVE no idea where Jennifer Tuke (Letters, 3/9) got her "80% of Australians" support access to abortion figure from. Not any study I've heard of. But really, even a higher figure would prompt me to say "So what?" I submit that abortion would not be wrong because of any opinion poll — it is objectively wrong because it ignores physical facts. You may as well draft legislation that denies gravity.
Every argument from the pro-choice, pro-death lobby, including the obfuscation from Dr Chris Bayly and colleagues ("Abortion law reform promises better health care, theage.com.au, 3/9) ignores the absolute reality of a unique and vulnerable human life growing inside the mother's womb — worthy of equal protection by the law. Size is irrelevant, as is development stage.
"Community standards" are too often extremely poor judges on matters of human rights, as has been shown throughout history. Why are we making the same mistake again?
Mark Rabich, Heathmont
Listen to the experts
JENNIFER Tuke is right (Letters, 3/9). Most Victorians do support the decriminalisation of abortion. The Abortion Law Reform Bill was drafted to reflect current clinical practice in Victoria. The Royal Women's Hospital, a great maternity hospital with long-established unplanned-pregnancy and abortion services, supports the bill without the proposed amendments (The Age, 3/9).
Every amendment to the bill that has been proposed limits women's right to exercise their choice; the amendments have been considered and rejected by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. I hope the members of Parliament are listening to both the medical profession, who provide high quality health services, and the community, who need them.
Stephanie Chen, Brighton East


(Posted in Abortion)



ALP HOIST BY ITS OWN PETARD!! fAMILY FIRST SINKS ALP BILLS IN SENATE! 5.9.2008

Michelle Grattan pointed out in The Age newspaper on 5 September 2008 that the Alternative Liberal Party in Victoria had made the preference deal which saw Family First get the last senate seat in the 2004 federal election.
"As you make your bed so shall you lie in it", and how apt it is for the ALP government which is now unable to get its legislation through federal parliament because it has created the millstone round its neck in the form of Steve Fielding who, if anything, is certainly NOT family first when it comes to big business.
The ALP has been in government since November 2007, but the numbers in the senate for the new parliament only took effect from 1 July 2008, and the numbers are so tight that there is little room for negotiations with the minor parties for legislation which the Coalition has no intention of supporting.
The article below shows in detail how the ALP manoeuvred the preferences to eliminate the Greens - they preferred Family First and they got shot in the feet which will lead to future frustrations as they try to get legislation passed which Steve Fielding doesn't like!
The longer the ALP is in government in Canberra the more it is looking like the Coalition of the Howard era.



(Posted in Australian politics and politicians)



BURD THOU NEVER WERT REMOVED FROM TOORAK TO ISRAEL 19.8.2008

APOLOGIES TO PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY FOR MISQUOTING HIS FAMOUS WORDS:
HAIL TO THEE BLITHE SPIRIT,
BIRD THOU NEVER WERT!
After the following article appeared in the Sunday Age on 3 August 2008, a flurry of letters followed in the next few weeks, some from the usual suspects. These are the ones who have yet to learn the lessons of history, and it seems they are intent on learning them the hard way.
These people - zionist true believers - live in Australia where they decry the ever-growing voices of those who understand the need for change. Israel will ultimately have to become a secular state together with Palestine in a one-state solution to stop the 60-year war which will otherwise continue indefinitely with death and horror in a continuous violent confrontation.
The letters follow the article, and appeared in the Sunday Age on 10 and 17 August 2008:
Straddling the divide
• Paul Daley
• August 3, 2008
A CHARACTERISTIC of Kevin Rudd's brief but eventful political life had been his remarkable, irrepressible capacity to promote his views - regardless of where they fitted in with party orthodoxy.
As a mere slip of a backbencher Rudd decided that foreign affairs was his forte; he was, after all, a former diplomat. And he was not going to be deterred from speaking out on almost any diplomatic issue by the fact Labor had a foreign affairs spokesman in Laurie Brereton.
Rudd used to drive Brereton and his staff mad. He'd pop up in all sorts of foreign, weird, dysfunctional places - not least the press gallery - to enunciate his views and critique both Labor and government diplomatic and defence policy.
Those of us who occasionally dealt with him back then admired his energy and chutzpah, while observing his tensions with Brereton with a sense of squeamish hilarity. By and large he was given pretty short shrift (there's a lesson in that for sure!) until Simon Crean actually awarded him the shadow foreign affairs job after Labor's 2001 election loss.
Rudd continued to work the press gallery tirelessly.
On one occasion, in July 2004, Rudd was on the phone constantly and walking in and out of the various bureaus incessantly. He was in a complete lather and the issue was Israel.
That was when Australia was one of just six countries to vote against a United Nations resolution demanding Israel dismantle its notorious security barrier - the wall around the West Bank that, while making life a misery for Palestinians, has done much to thwart suicide bombings.
The UN held the non-binding vote after the International Court of Justice ruled a section of the structure had been built on Palestinian land.
The five other "no" votes came from Israel, America, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau - 150 other countries voted "yes".
Rudd was telling anyone who'd listen that Australia's position was shameful. The government, aware of this, did some rear-guard briefing of its own, telling journalists that not only could Labor not be trusted to manage the precious bi-lateral relationship with America, but it would also mishandle Australia's "special friendship" with Israel.
Certainly Australian and Israeli Jews regarded John Howard as a great friend. When I visited Israel with Alexander Downer about this time last year, the foreign minister was feted like a rock star. Even Downer seemed to blush at the incredible platitudes awarded to him during dinner at Jerusalem's King David Hotel. Back then some Israeli officials and some prominent Australian friends of Israel viewed the prospect of a Rudd Government with measured caution.
A few months ago, when I was back in Israel, one of Tony Blair's advisers approached me. Blair, the former British prime minister, is now a special envoy to the Middle East on behalf of the so-called quartet of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union. "Did you know," the adviser asked me, "that your government has increased aid to the Palestinian Authority?" This was seen as a big deal by the quartet - something John Howard would not have done and a sign, perhaps, of a different approach by Kevin Rudd on Israel.
A week before Christmas the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, Bob McMullan, announced Australia had indeed doubled its 2008 aid package to the Palestinian Territories to $45 million.
A senior Australian diplomatic source told me the aid increase "succinctly reflected a subtle repositioning and a new approach" in the Middle East.
Earlier this year Downer's replacement, Stephen Smith, gave an interview in Washington in which he said Australia was committed to an "even-handed" approach on Middle East policy.
Smith told Tony Walker, of The Australian Financial Review, that Labor would adhere to a longstanding policy acknowledging Israel's right to exist and the rights of a Palestinian nation state.
"That's an even-handed approach which Labor has had as its policy for a long period of time. It's a two-nation solution. That's even-handed," Smith said.
Walker, a veteran Middle East watcher, observed that that position "contrasts with the previous government, which tilted Australia's Middle East policy towards Israel and made little pretence of adhering to an 'even-handed' approach".
Perhaps he was right. On February 8, Michael Burd, in a letter to the Australian Jewish News, wrote: "It wasn't so long ago Jewish Labor supporters were arguing there was no difference between Liberal and Labor policy towards Israel, and Jews who attended private dinners with Kevin Rudd … were led to believe Labor would continue to support Israel.
"This letter writer will be watching for the next Arab/Muslim-backed UN anti-Israel resolution to see if Rudd stands by his commitment to the Jewish community."
Around this time, Rudd seemed to allay some fears when he introduced a motion into Federal Parliament honouring the state of Israel, which turned 60 this year. One of his MPs, Julia Irwin - a long-time critic of Israel's conduct - boycotted the motion.
Australia, meanwhile, is watching Israel closely as its prime minister, Ehud Olmert, prepares to stand down amid myriad corruption allegations. Despite his domestic problems, Olmert has done much to advance the peace process.
Australia also watches carefully as Middle East tensions rise over Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons capable of striking at the heart of the Jewish state. Senior figures in the Rudd Government will not, based on intelligence briefings, privately rule out a pre-emptive, unilateral strike against Iran by Israel.
There is no doubt that, while the Australia-Israel relationship remains close, there is significant new uncertainty about it.
Rudd, who has yet to visit Israel as prime minister, does little by accident.
Paul Daley is The Sunday Age's national political columnist.



Who's extreme?
Larry Stillman (Letters, 10/8), a member of both the left-wing socialist organisation Australian Jewish Democratic Society and Independent Australian Jewish Voices — groups considered extremist by the Jewish community — claims my views on Israel are extreme.
I support a two-state solution with issues of shared status to be part of any final negotiations.
The only issues I would imagine Stillman may consider extreme are that I would expect reciprocity from the Palestinians before any facts agreed by both sides change.
I would also expect acceptance from all Palestinian factions of a Jewish state as their neighbour, just as Israel would have to accept an Islamic state of Palestine; zero tolerance on all forms of violence against Israeli civilians and, unless provoked, against the Israel Defence Forces; and, finally, zero tolerance of incitement of hatred towards Jews and Israelis in Palestinian Schools, universities and media.
MICHAEL BURD, Toorak

(Posted in Jewish and Israel and Palestine)