Want to end terrorism? Then stop Western Imperialism.

By Christian Marx Sadly once again, yet another suicide bomber has acted his…

The far-right agenda of the Turnbull government strikes…

By Loz Lawrey The Australian well of public debate has been truly poisoned…

Day to Day Politics: Will someone please fix…

Thursday 25 May 2017 Those of you who follow my daily political mutterings…

Your Say: the 1967 Referendum

From Gary Pead It should be remembered in Referendum Week ​that in 1967…

Day to Day Politics: After-Budget Hangover.

Wednesday 24 May 2017 I’m having one of those days where I’m going…

At least I never said "Adani"...

Someone asked me how my wife feels about having our conversations repeated…

Day to Day Politics: Three cases of…

Tuesday 22 May 2017 1 I have for some time now been calling…

“Baa, baa, black sheep …”

By freef'all852 (Warning: This article contains words and language that may offend the…

«
»
Facebook

Discrimination for being a white male – seriously?

Australia has recently been subject to a debate over proposed changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The changes were seen by conservatives to be necessary as there was some evidence to suggest that the Courts found that sometimes, some of their rank were found guilty of harassing, offending or insulting others based on their race or religion. During the debate,

Senator Brandis further added that he found it “deeply offensive and insulting” for Labor and the Greens to say his campaign for the changes to race hate laws had something to do with him being a white man.

Thankfully, the changes were voted down in the Senate.

The same week, ‘legendary’ entertainer Barry Manilow at the age of 73 announced that he and his partner had been together for 39 years. The reason that Manilow’s relationship was ‘newsworthy’ is that his partner is male and they finally married in Palm Springs in 2014. Any partnership that lasts 39 years must have a lot of commitment and consensus by those in the partnership and in my view anyway, should be commended.

Manilow apparently kept his personal life to himself because he was worried that he would lose his fans if he ‘came out’, but found out that most actually supported him. And so they should have.

Patrick Garvin, a staff writer for The Boston Globe took a different view, namely why is there an expectation for people who don’t live traditional male/female partnerships to ‘come out’ and justify their lifestyle choices? Garvin has a point – while sometimes a conversation will turn to how various couples met and determined they would form a partnership, there usually isn’t a discussion on why a particular male formed a partnership with a female.

Despite the claims made, Brandis can’t be serious that he is being actively discriminated against. Yes, he is a white man and while he is divorced, it’s highly likely that he has never had to justify his choice of the opposite gender for the partnership that brought two children into the world. This is the same George Brandis who is responsible for the carriage of the changes to the Australian Marriage Act, which are required to remove the requirement that only a man and a woman can be lawfully married.

In 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported

Less than an hour after Prime Minister John Howard announced the changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation enabling the changes into parliament.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others.

The laws currently do not define marriage.

“We’ve decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation”, Mr Howard told reporters.

The US Judge who ruled on same sex marriage completed his ruling with the following words

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfilment for themselves.”

Australia still has a long way to go before we can claim to be a society based on equality. As Howard said, the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation. Howard changed the law to prevent same sex marriage without the need for a referendum, postal plebiscite or any other delaying tactic; Brandis and Turnbull can adopt a position on marriage that agrees with contemporary beliefs and change it back.

By the way Senator Brandis, Manilow faced discrimination as he had to justify why he prefers to be partnered with a male – you and Turnbull haven’t had to justify your choices of female partners. It is a factual statement that you are a white male. Factual statements are not discrimination – it’s in Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.

This article by 2353NM was originally published on TPS Extra.

 

Help Support The AIMN

Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.

Regular Donation
Frequency Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
One-off Donation
Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.


9 comments

  1. pierre wilkinson

    though it is apparent that he is indeed “white”, to suggest that Senator Brandis is a man is to presuppose that he qualifies as such….. i suspect some other possibilities, for his humanity is seriously in question

  2. totaram

    Senator Brandis is a “grub”. Make of that what you will.

  3. longwhitekid

    Gorge Brandy is one of the most flagrantly corrupt pigs in the short white history of this country.

  4. Sir Scotchmistery

    I think it’s imperative that we speak honestly here. Tell others what you really feel.

  5. Kaye Lee

    David Leyonhjelm made an 18C complaint against Mark Kenny for calling him an “angry white male”.

    Kenny also said “David Leyonhjelm is a boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block,” but I guess he accepted that part 🙂

  6. Neil Aitchison

    In this new world of do anything you want and supposedly it is acceptable, then can’t a white skinned man be allowed to claim that he is black?….surely it is racist to deny any person the “right” to be any race that they feel they want to be?…gender fluidity is as much a pathetic notion as make-believe skin colour and homosexual couples cannot do marriage because their anatomies won’t let them – they don’t have the male-female body parts to make marriage happen. It is their biology that makes them unequal and this disqualifies them from marriage.

  7. Max Gross

    Brandis is a male? Who knew!

  8. Evan Evans

    Brandis is a dickhead and should be discriminated against on that basis.

  9. Mick Yemm

    Neil Aitchison, you’re confusing sex for procreation with marriage. The landed gentry colluded with the church in the middle ages to bring marriage in to the realms of a holy construct, primarily to protect their assets from claims by bastard offspring. The rest of your comment just makes it obvious you’re a bigoted arsehole.

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: