<H2><b>BLOGNOW ARCHIVES - PART 1 - 2009</b></H2>

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