Search Results for: gay marriage and why i support it

The Marriage Plebiscite, Brexit and What The Question Will Be…

June 26, 2016
Written by: Rossleigh
9 Replies

Q: What’s the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite?

A: A referedum usually refers to amendments to the Constitution. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, there’s no need for a referendum as the High Court has already ruled that the Federal Government has the power to make laws on marriage. A plebiscite, on the other hand, allows the politicians to ignore the outcome and just vote the way they would have if we hadn’t spent $160 million getting everyone to vote.

Ok, I don’t know how many of you got a shock when Britain voted to leave the EU. Apparently many of the people who voted to leave were quite surprised and expressed quite a lot of anger that their vote would be taken seriously when all they were doing was declaring their love of Enid Blyton and the right to be a soccer hooligan without a lot of Europeans complaining that they were worse than the Russians. Not only that, but many of the politicians who backed it were quick to point out that their promises about the benefits to Britain were only theoretical and now that things were actually happening we had to look carefully at the nuances of what they’d said. For example, when we said no more immigration, we didn’t mean no more foreign workers, we just meant we didn’t want them to have any legal rights, so no don’t expect that you’ll get a job soon.

So, because of the surprise result in Britain, many people have expressed concern over the upcoming same sex marriage plebiscite which Turnbull has suggested could be held as early as the end of the year. Or next year. Or whenever they work out the question.

Now, some of you are probably cynically suggesting that our plebiscite is a bit like the vote in Britain. We’re holding it, but the people who called don’t really think it will happen, and, in our case, it’s just a delaying tactic to avoid the question till after the election when Tony Abbott will again be PM and Sir Malcolm will move to New York. (Ok, take it as satire, but go ahead and read some of my pieces from 2013 and 2014 and you’ll see that I have a better predictive record than most political commentators!)

And I’ve heard some of the media, left wingers that they are, wonder why don’t even have the question yet.

Anyway, I have it on good authority that this is because the Liberals are working hard on getting the question for the plebiscite just right. Or should that be Just Right, as in making sure that those Just and Right will prevail!

For example, these a few of the possibilities they’re considering:

1. Would you like to see the marriage act amended so that marriage is no longer a sacred thing?
2. Would you like to began our slippery slope to destruction?
3. Are you concerned that an amendment to the marriage act would send the wrong signal to people smugglers?
4. As Britain is finding after their “Yes” vote, are you concerned that Australis could damage our AAA credit rating with a hasty decision?
5. Do you consider that marriage is a sacred union of a man and a woman ordained by God or are you a heathen who will burn in Hell?
6. Aren’t you worried that if a child is brought up without a father and a mother, they could turn out like Malcolm? (vetoed by Turnbull)
7. Should parliament concern itself with more important things and not waste time debating marriage equality?
And finally, the one that’s winning at the moment:
8. Do you just want to vote and let us decide the question later?

As for the final one, there’s a bit of discussion about whether it is an actual question or a rhetorical and, if it’s the former, does that mean that the question on same sex marriage will already be decided by a “YES” vote and there’s no need for a parliamentary debate. Then there’s the question of whether a “YES” vote will mean that the Liberals can just insert any question they like at a later date in much the same way that they claim a mandate for all their policies whether mentioned in before the election or not once they win. So you can see that it’s not as simple as asking do you think that gay people should be allowed to marry the person that they love!

Of course, all this is contigent on the Abbott/Turnbull/Abbott government being returned next week. If Shorten gets in, we’d have the terrible circumstance that an issue like this would be decided by the unions, because that’s where the Labor policy of a conscience vote, followed by support of SSM in future years, has been decided.

If that happens, there’ll be no support for a conscience vote from the Liberals. And that’s the thing about a conscience vote. You can only have a conscience when your party says so!

Public schools, politics, and a religious divide

June 22, 2016
Written by: The AIM Network
11 Replies

By Brian Morris

Australia is creating a new socio-religious divide — inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally — based squarely on education. And it is reflected in the growing imbalance between an increasingly secular public and what can be described as an endemic piety that percolates through parliaments, the bureaucracy and judiciary.

After more than a century the education system has regressed from a uniform and nationally accepted principle — of being “Free, Compulsory and Secular” — to a divisive two-tier system. While public schools labour under funding cuts a burgeoning private system has flourished, with generous governments grants.

With high fees that exclude many bright students, private religious schools have become elite enclaves for the affluent. They cocoon a privileged demographic that creates an economic, cultural and Christian divide. It defies the original egalitarian principles of education that were already in place at the time of Federation.

This recent Christianisation of education — mainly in private schools — has a political connotation. It serves the interests on both churches and conservative politicians to perpetuate a mutually beneficial alliance.

This close relationship between religious schools, neo-liberalism and a more Christianised parliament has been evident for decades. But before focusing on more detailed educational aspects — and how that manifests in wider society — we should first consider the conservative political environment.

Neo-liberalism, private schools and religion are inseparable.

God in politics: As a perceived ‘moderate’, Malcolm Turnbull continues an extended line of Prime Ministers who appeal to God. After the Paris massacre he declared the terrorists “godless” — though they were not atheists, they were fanatical followers of Radical Islam. He pleaded for “God’s love” after the Orlando massacre, and he follows a long line of leaders and dignitaries who regularly “call for prayers” after any disaster. This appeal to the supernatural is not seen in the progressive secular countries of Europe.

It is hypocritical for the Prime Minister to rebuke the hate-speech from Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman while he remains mute on the anti-gay rhetoric from Christian bishops brandishing the Christian Bible.

These are the organisations that support Turnbull’s government — the Australian Christian Lobby and a phalanx of similar lobbyists, it’s Bob Day and the Family First Party and a full sweep of charismatic churches with views akin to Sheikh Alsuleiman.

Tasmania’s Family First candidate, Peter Madden, made brazen comments connecting Orlando with same-sex marriage. And we can expect more of the same when angry Christians begin to vilify gays, once the upcoming $160 million plebiscite gets into full swing — should a Turnbull government be returned in July.

Since Orlando the internet is once again alive with Christians raving about “God’s punishment of gays.” Governments have for decades remained silent on this bigotry — due primarily to the symbiotic relationship between Churches and politics. As such, Australia can literally be termed a “Soft Christian Theocracy”.

But none of this is new; although it’s become pernicious since John Howard’s term.

It was Professor Marion Maddox who first blew the whistle with her scathing book “God under Howard; the Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics.” We have become more ambivalent to the Christianisation of parliament while the population is becoming more secular. It’s a yawning gap between our anachronistic political establishment and a progressive general public.

Parliamentary Christianity is on the rise, exposing the religiosity of a string of Liberals that brandish their faith — Cory Bernadari, Scott Morrison (point 9), George Brandis, Eric Abetz, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull states, “Love for humanity is when we are closest to God.” The judiciary, too, appeal to God for guidance in their perennial Red Mass.

There is no place for public appeals to God at any level of public office!

It is a mindset that blocks parliamentary process on a raft of contemporary social policy. It’s not just marriage equality; it’s voluntary euthanasia, abortion rights, contraception, prayers in parliament, religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, mandatory reporting of child abuse, and tax exemptions for all religious organisations that top $20 billion per year. The list is endless when including religion in schools.

And mainstream media tends to ignore this broad disparity between citizens and an overtly Christianised government — particularly on education policy. It includes religious instruction, another $248 million for chaplains in public schools, and the $11 billion for private religious schools that enroll almost 40 per cent of Australian children. And there’s no concern for the dozen of church schools still teaching creationism!

Next, we explore why this trend continues but the blunt question is how all this can occur in a secular country. No other secular nations have these extreme examples of government-endorsed religiosity and church sanctification.

And it’s all paid by the public that is religion-neutral.

In April the Rationalist Society of Australia commissioned a national poll on religiosity in Australian. A total of 45 per cent said they had “No Religion”, a substantial increase on the 22 per cent from the 2011 Census. And from the upcoming Census in August that tally is predicted to increase closer to 50 per cent.

“Cultural Christians” are not included in this figure. They are people who no longer have a commitment to the religion of their childhood but who “traditionally” continue to mark the “Christian” box — through sheer force of habit. Collectively, the religion-neutral count is now a minimum two-thirds of the population!

It is unequivocal, from historical evidence researched by Professor Helen Irving, that the writers of Australia’s constitution made it abundantly clear that the nation was deemed to be secular. It remains a tragedy that Section 116, the only part relating to religion, was so poorly drafted. Failure to enforce its intent has allowed religion to embed itself firmly into politics, education and general society.

There have been few instances in the recent past where the High Court has had to deal with arguments concerning the meaning of each of the four clauses of s.116. The 1981 challenge to federal funding of religious schools (Defense of Government Schools) was lost 1-6 as the Court majority refused to interpret the first establishment clause as meaning “separation of church and state.”

Two of the judges came right out and said that s.116 did not mean separation. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, endorsed one of them. But the High Court can change its mind. The challenge now is to mount a new case that can prise open the establishment clause and recover the secular intention behind it.

That would make the federal funding of religious schools, the Chaplaincy Program, and teaching religion in public schools unconstitutional. It would end prayers in parliament and a broad sweep of other situations where religion imposes itself — uninvited — into the public space of a constitutionally secular Australia.

But EDUCATION has once again become the Achilles Heel . . . !

We thought the debate was settled almost 150 years ago! The on-going feud between Anglicans and Catholics — dating from King Henry’s split with Rome — was imported along with British colonisation. Inevitably it spilled over into the early schooling of children, requiring strict segregation of the religions.

Finally, by 1870, the churches in each colony believed the struggling and fledgling country would advance more effectively if all education became “free, compulsory and secular”.

Churches and governments came to the conclusion that segregated religious schools were “damaging” social cohesion by “dividing children on religious lines, and limiting access to good education to only those who could afford to pay”.

Prophetic words from the early colonists — just as relevant today.

That quote, and a wealth of research on the schools crisis today comes from “Taking God to School: The end of Australia’s egalitarian education”, the book published in 2014 by Professor Marion Maddox.

Maddox is a Christian but like the early colonists she believes religion in education is damaging secular equilibrium and creating a social divide.

“Free, Compulsory and Secular” education lasted for almost 100 years, until Prime Minister Robert Menzies reintroduced Commonwealth funding for Catholic schools in the 1960s. In the 60 years since then the economic disparity between state schools and private religious schools has widened to a point where public education is in crisis.

Since John Howard’s tenure as Prime Minister federal funding of private religious schools has exploded to the point where almost 40 per cent of children have a private religious education, an OECD high.

Most of the public system remains on a par with the private sector — scholastically — as it has first rate teachers and good resources to provide a first class education. But some areas in each state have become impoverished due to effective funding cuts, and successive governments favouring religious schools.

A recent Sydney Morning Herald leader says it all; “Private schools get more from the government than public schools, and that’s seriously wrong.” By 2020 Catholic schools will receive more funding than the entire public education system. According to the SMH, government funding for Catholic schools in 2016 exceeds $11 billion — which doesn’t include parents’ fees, other revenue and corporate sponsorship.

The original Gonski Review, and its 41 recommendations, was a landmark program to eliminate the funding disadvantage in public education. But the axing of on-going Gonski funding — first established under Labor — indicates this government’s political motive (as with Howard to Abbott) to fully privatise education.

A clear warning came with Turnbull’s pre-election policy when he stated his plan to off-load public schools to the states, and for the commonwealth only to fund the expansion of private religious schools.

So, what are the long-term implications?

If public education is degraded, fewer public school students will qualify for the prime university degrees. Over time the corporate sector, politics, the bureaucracy, judiciary and media will be the exclusive preserve of affluence and privileged graduates, educated initially in a dominant private religious school system.

That trend was already evident in the 1980s . . .

During that period a neo-liberal shift brought structural changes in government bureaucracy and policy. Senior bureaucrats increasingly came from university, via elite private schools funded by wealthy parents, and straight into the prime departments of Treasury and Finance, which formed the new economic model.

In his revealing book, “Economic Rationalism in Canberra“, sociologist Michael Pusey exposed in 1991 a bureaucracy of young conservatives with private school backgrounds that predisposed them to see government policy solutions in terms of more deregulation, more privitisation, smaller government, and less welfare spending. The neo-liberal agenda.

Twenty five years on there is a far greater ratio of students in private religious schools who then move on to university, taking the majority of prime high-cost degrees. No longer is it merely the bureaucracy that reflects the profile of more affluent and privileged graduates. That profile now extends to the corporate sector, the political mainstream, the judiciary, the media and every level within the establishment.

Public education provides a unique benefit unmatched by religious schools. Beyond the Gonski Review we have many authorative research projects to verify the immeasurable advantages of public education. Most recently is the review by Professor Alan Reid in “Building our nation through Public Education“.

The critical features of his research attest to the primacy of public school education. Not only does it have an overall delivery of quality, it provides essential links to the local community, an ethic of collaboration, innovation, diversity and cohesion, and the fundamental principles of democracy and — most importantly — of equality among the diverse cultures of students. Vital elements for a cohesive society.

But this will be lost, together with dire social consequences, if public education is not funded to the full extent given to the private school system.

With sound reasoning and critical appraisal we need to recognise three key factors — from the points already outline here — if we are to avert a deeply troubling and most serious division in society.

One: That Australian politics has become increasingly Christianised, with an established policy agenda that favours private religious schools over public education. This political agenda needs to be reversed.

Two: That further expansion of the private school system and monopolisation of university places creates a “graduate class” that is increasingly affluent, and taking prime senior positions in organisations that shape Australia’s future. It creates a decline in publicly educated graduates with traits that emphasise not only academic achievement but also the advantages of diversity, community grounding and social inclusiveness.

Three: That a largely mono-dimensional private school elite in a majority of influential management and executive positions is ultimately damaging to the structural fabric of society. It tends to breed a corrosive “us and them” dynamic within the populace which underpins the type of conflict experienced in Britain.

While it’s too easy to ridicule such a thesis there are examples throughout history where mono-dimensional societies either stagnate or degenerate into division and disharmony.

As Marion Maddox graphically explains in “Taking God to School” — we risk losing the bedrock ingredient of a just and egalitarian society if we abandon the unique benefits of public education. But that will require an essential injection of funds and resources, whether through Gonski or a similar model.

A God-fearing parliament and a secular public is evidence of a “Soft Christian Theocracy”. It denotes a government that is guided more by the influence of churches and supernatural beliefs than by rational and secular principles. It leads ultimately to an education system that is based — however loosely — on elitism.

The final question is why there is a media taboo on openly discussing this crucial question of religion in politics and education. Honesty and transparency are the first requirements for a healthy society.

We are a nation that was deemed secular from the time of Federation — and we are a population that is majority religion-neutral. To advance successfully, further into the 21st century, we need a parliament, bureaucracy and media to support public education that is once again “Free, Compulsory and Secular.”

It’s time to de-fund private religious schools and back public education — to the hilt!

About Brian Morris: World travel shaped Brian’s interest in social justice — wealth, poverty and religion in many countries. His book Sacred to Secular is critically acclaimed, including from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. It’s an analysis of Christianity, its origins and the harm it does. It’s a call for Australia to become fully secular. More information about Brian can be found on his website, Plain Reason.

Also by Brian Morris:

Pious pollies paralyse popular policy

Billionaires, Banks, Bureaucrats and the Bible

Wealth abuse, taxation and religion

New poll on religion and the Australian Constitution

Islamism, Atheism, and the ‘Voldemort’ effect

An open letter to Christians and other bigots

April 19, 2016
Written by: The AIM Network
98 Replies

By Sir ScotchMistery

For the last several years as a gay man I have stood silently by and allowed your fundamentalist claptrap to interfere with the way I lead my life.

I confess to being one of those rare gay men who actually doesn’t have sex, but I represent a huge number of men and women who do, and in much the same way as you like to have your heads of department go after major corporations and counsel them on their choices about who and what to support, I feel it is high time to put a few cards on the table.

About the only thing that any of you are being noticed about recently is your support for your leaders in various ways as they have been stood up before the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child abuse and made excuses for either years of screwing little boys and girls, or even more years as organisations, making excuses for those who did the screwing.

You have to understand at some stage, and I have to tell you I don’t give you much credit for the intellect to do the understanding, but seriously folks, you really don’t represent anybody but the half-dozen that cluster mindlessly in front of you on a Sunday, listening to your liturgy espousing the naughtiness of homosexuality, whilst planning your next impact on the nether regions of a 6-year-old.

I still fail to understand how it is that parents of the children who have been the victims of your behaviour still feel that you have some “message” for them from some spiritual being who may or may not have at some stage walked the earth. I still fail to understand how you vicars, pastors, priests and other assorted ne’er do wells who have found a tax-free method of inflicting your small minds of even small minds of those clustered in front of you.

Even Hillsong, which at least is honest about it being a business, was started by somebody whose primary passion – it was rumoured – was far from, shall we say, a good Christian? The bit that I don’t get is that the organisation is still run by his son, and your mindless, drip fed adherents are okay with that.

You may have our politicians conned, but that’s to be expected – none of them are all that bright either, but don’t for 1 minute think that you fool the rest of us, we know your game. Create as many mindless adherents as you can, and have them give them your children, without asking questions, the way the Catholic Church, particularly the Jesuits used to do.

The most outrageous part of this whole process is that the perpetrators and the facilitators of this abuse are now going after major corporate entities and telling them to stop supporting marriage equality. They don’t give any reason, they merely expect it to be done, because mindless cretins have always done what they have told them, which is why you have had this endless supply of little boys to play with as you fancy.

The ABS will tell you that you represent less than 20% of the population of this country. It seems amazing that among such a small group, so much damage can be done. Sort of like the police and the court system, in terms of their impacts on Aboriginal kids, though it has to be said you have a lot to answer for among those children as well.

Committed Christian? Mindless knucklehead? Abuse supporter/facilitator? Which Christian are you?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Why Turnbull Is So Much Better Than Tony Abbott!

February 24, 2016
Written by: Rossleigh
13 Replies

“G’day. Beer?”

“Chardonnay. You know I don’t drink beer.”

“That’s right. Sorry I forgot, you’re one of those socialists like Malcolm Turnbull!”

“How can you call Turnbull a socialist? He’s a multimillionaire. He hardly believes in the redistribution of wealth.”

“Redistribution of wealth? What’s that got to do with socialism? I mean, we Liberals all support the redistribution of wealth from those lazy bastards who haven’t got off their backsides and started a business to those who’ve actually made something of themselves. I thought socialists just wanted to keep the status quo.”

“Whatever, Turnbull’s no socialist.”

“What about his views on the Republic and gay marriage and all those other ridiculous idea that you radicals believe in?”

“Well, he certainly hasn’t done much about them. I mean, he’s no different from Tony Abbott if you ask me.”

“He’s very different!”

“How?”

“Well, he has shinier shoes for a start… And he knows how to take a selfie, or whatever they’re called. When did you ever see Tony Abbott take a selfie?”

“That’s just because he doesn’t know how to use a smart phone!”

“Now you’re just being unfair. Turnbull’s very different. I mean, he’s electable. That’s another point of difference.”

“I’m not so sure about that. Have you seen the latest opinion polls?”

“I never look at polls apart from the one that counts.”

“But weren’t you talking about them last week when you were telling me how hopeless Labor were?”

“That was different.”

“How?”

“We were in front.”

“And this latest thing…”

“You mean the fact that he gives ideas about tax reform at least two days thought before ruling it out if there’s any negative feedback, or if the Labor Party say it’s a good idea. Well, that’s just politics like Scott Morrison said when he was asked about where the budget emergency had gone.”

“No, I mean Turnbull launching an investigation into the Safe Schools project just to keep the bigots in your party happy.”

“People have a right to be bigots you know!”

“That’s not what you said when the CFMEU launched that ad campaign about foreign workers…”

“That was different. They’re a union and unions don’t have the right to be bigots.”

“But the Safe Schools project is about trying to ensure that all people felt safe at school and free from bullying!”

“Yes, it sounds all right, but it’s a bit like the whole Baby Asha thing.”

“What!”

“We’d like to be able to help everyone but if you let people stay then it’d just encourage the people smugglers and then we’d have more deaths at sea.”

“What’s that got to do with the Safe Schools thing?”

“Well, from what I understand it was telling all those gay and lesbian and transgender people that they’re allowed to express who they are, and if they do that then it’ll just encourage other students to bully them, so it’s really helping them by giving them a deterrent against coming out.”

“But they should be allowed to come out! And they shouldn’t be bullied for it!”

“It’s all very well for you to say that, but look at how you lefties bullied that poor Freedom Commissioner bloke, and imagine what you’d say if any of our front bench came out. Look at how you abandoned Peter Slipper when it came out that he was sending suggestive messages to his staffer….”

“Just a minute, weren’t you critical of Julia Gillard for not abandoning Peter Slipper? And we never attacked Wilson because he was gay – we were just annoyed that instead of appointing a new Disability Commissioner that you appointed a card carrying Liberal member who was on record as saying that he thought that Human Commission should be abolished!”

“He resigned from the Liberal Party as soon as he was appointed, so I don’t think you could suggest that he was partisan. Unlike Gillian Triggs who never resigned as Human Rights Commissioner, which just shows how hostile to the Liberal Party she was.”

“How do you figure that?”

“Anyone openly supporting human rights like that is clearly hostile to many of our policies!”

“Anyway, as for Turnbull, I can’t think of anything where he’s actually stood up and said this is where I differ from Tony Abbott and this latest attack on the Safe Schools is exactly the sort of thing that Abbott would have done.”

“Yes, but he’s not fooling us, you know. We know that deep, deep down Malcolm has certain principles that he’s not prepared to compromise on.”

“What are they?”

“The idea that he should be leader. Once you tell him he’s in charge, he’d sell his own grandmother.”

“Does he have a grandmother?”

“What are you implying?”

“Nothing, I just thought that she’d have to be a fair age and…”

“Just so long as you’re not implying that he sold her. I mean that’s the sort of nasty innuendo that you lefties resort to…

“But you were the one who said…”

“I don’t even know why I drink with you. Your hypocricy just makes me angry.”

“But I just asked…”

“Right, that’s it. If all you can do is try to assassinate Turnbull’s character the way you did Tony Abbott….I don’t know whether I can be bothered setting you straight any more. As Greg Sheridan said, no PM had ever been subject to the sort of media hatred that poor Tony experienced.”

“What about Julia Gillard?”

“That was different, she deserved it.”

“What? What did she do to deserve it?”

“She appointed Peter Slipper as Speaker. How could anyone appoint someone like that to such a position?”

“But didn’t the Liberals appoint him as Deputy Speaker. I don’t see much difference.”

“Don’t be ridiculous. The Speaker is The Speaker and The Deputy Speaker is the Deputy. I mean, we’re happy to have Barnaby Joyce as Deputy PM, but the idea of making him PM is more worrying than Trump/Sanders joint ticket for The Whitehorse.”

“But surely if he was considered fit and proper to be Deputy, he was fit to be Speaker. After all, even Barnaby will get to be acting PM on occasions.”

“Yes, but he’ll be told to sit in his office and if the phone rings his secretary will answer it and ask the person to ring back in a couple of days when the communication systems are working again.”

“What if it’s an emergency, like a disaster or a terrorist attack or something?”

“Then the secretary will just have to deal with it herself.”

“Ok then. So, the Beudget is under control even though the deficit is as big as it ever was, the government isn’t going to make any announcements on tax until it’s closer to the election because in nearly three years they haven’t worked out a policy, you’re worried that the Safe Schools Coalition will just lead to more gay people feeling comfortable and that’s a bad thing, and you got rid of a sitting PM just because you thought Turnbull was more popular and you still think that you should be elected.”

“Hang on, we didn’t get rid of Abbott because Turnbull was more popular!”

“Why did you then?”

“I told you: He has much shinier shoes!”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Day to Day Politics: ‘How about a parliamentary plebiscite on marriage equality’

January 31, 2016
Written by: John Lord
22 Replies

Sunday January 31 January.

1 Hypothetical I know, but what about if next week, when Parliament resumes, Bill Shorten moves a non-binding vote on the subject of marriage equality. Those who agree go to the right of the chair, those who don’t to the left. If the yes vote is carried then have a real vote, pass a bill and the matter is concluded. If the no vote is carried then have a plebiscite and carry out the will of the people.

Conservatives want a plebiscite for two reasons. Firstly to delay in order to propagate more Far Right Evangelical Christian propaganda and secondly to gain access to half of the $150 million to support their cause.

It seems obscenely immoral to me to be spending that amount of money on something that surveys and polls have for a number of years shown overwhelming support for a yes vote.

If politicians are not there to carry out, or reflect the will of the people what are they there for?

Having spent a major part of my life in the Church environment I am fully conversant with the Biblical argument on this and other issues of social justice. They helped form my rejection of regressive religion.

I wrote an argument in support of gay marriage.

Having said that many surveys suggest that people of faith in main stream churches are in favour of marriage equality.

We should not underestimate just how influential Abbott, Andrews, Bernardi and others are in the Coalition parties.

Warren Entsch said: “It makes you wonder why we would spend millions of dollars on a plebiscite if you’re not going to respect the result. I find it rather bizarre.”

The $150 million would be better back in the program against domestic violence where it probably came from.

2 Health is set to become a major issue in the lead up to the election.The Australian Medical Association’s 2016 Annual Report into Public Hospital Funding show that Public Hospitals are in big trouble. AMA president Brian Owler, is quoted as saying that ‘public hospital funding is about to become the biggest single challenge facing state and territory finances’.

3 Quoting Scott (Gunna) Morrison on the Tax Debate: ‘We’ve advanced the debate I think a lot more effectively over the last four or five months than a green paper ever would.’

What absolute drivel. All they are doing is continuously repeating the same lines over and over saying that they are thinking about and talking about the issues.

Doing something seems to be out of the question. There surely will come a point in time when it will occur to a journalist, or someone, to ask just when decisions will be made. I mean for God’s sake what have they been doing for two and a half years.

Malcolm Turnbull’s interview with Neil Mitchell last Friday was laughable. Malcolm just sat there being, well-being Malcolm, smiling, talking being nice, talking, being calm, patient, polite, reassuring and tolerant, repeating himself, blaming Labor for everything. Yes everything’s on the table repeating it’s on the table, and all those other things Malcolm is good at.

Did I mention everything’s on the table. I did, did I say except Climate change, Marriage Equality, the Republic and Asylum Seekers. Well they aren’t. Tony’s still looking after them which of course means they will be incarcerated for life. No we are not thinking of putting any new policy on the table.

He was charming of course. White papers, green papers and toilet paper, even confetti if there’s a gay marriage. Even copy paper if you want an FOI request. OH and I forgot. Using public transport.

But where was the Prime Minister?

An observation.

‘Life is about perception. Not what is but what we perceive it to be.’

4 Thus far it is shaping up to be a historically typical boring election year. There will be all the usual claims and counter claims. The where is the money coming from questions. Politicians will say that they never underestimate the Australian people while at the same time treating us like idiots. In short it will be like every other election. Negative, negative.

Sorry, but Bill Shorten and Labor will not win this election with a traditional run of the mill campaign.

5 This from Tony Abbott’s speech to the Alliance Defending Freedom in New York on Thursday:

‘So I’ve been good on the theory of family but, like so many of my parliamentary colleagues, I’ve relied on a supportive spouse to put the heart into the home’.

That to me sounds like the view of a failed father. Or one who never tried.

And this paragraph grabbed my attention.

‘In today’s world, we need less ideology and more common sense; we need less impatience and more respect; we need less shouting at people and more engagement with them.’

He never stops giving.

6 Only in America.

This comment from the Guardian about the Trump organised Trump debate:

‘Both as a vaudeville show and a political rally, Trump’s event was lacking. There were no musical numbers nor were there any jugglers, although Trump certainly tap danced around addressing any substantive issues of policy.’

As I said: Only in America.

My thought for the day

When you think you have no more to give and someone cries out to you. Find the strength to help.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Hold everything and bomb Syria!

August 13, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
20 Replies

“We are acting in Iraq against Daesh with our Hornets launching air strikes on a regular basis. We should be doing the same in Syria.”

Dan Tehan, Liberal backbencher, August 13th, 2015

Interesting thing about people who believe that wind farms are damaging their health: They’re a small minority. The research doesn’t support their claims. But hey, science has been wrong before and it could be wrong again. We need more research. Not only that, we need a Wind Commissioner – preferably one who doesn’t attend Liberal Party fundraisers, but it’s so hard to find truly independent people who aren’t fellow travellers with the Liberal Party.

However, one of my left wing friends… well, acquaintances, you can’t really consider someone like that a friend. One of my left wing friends said, “F*ck ’em. When it’s all said and done who cares if it affects their health, they’re a small minority and we’re the majority so what we say goes, OK?”

And that’s the trouble with the left, they have an unhealthy belief in the idea of majority rules when we all know that the majority can sometimes run roughshod over the rights of a small minority.

Like climate change. They seem to think that just because the majority of people want to leave something for their grandchildren, that the minority who say let’s grab what we can now and screw the future, have no rights at all.

And as for same sex marriage, they seem to think that just because a majority supports it, then it should happen. Again, running roughshod over the beliefs of the very people who invented marriage – the Christian Church. Because there was no marriage before the Christian Church. Well, not a legitimate marriage anyway. There were husbands and wives but they can’t be considered to have had a proper marriage because they weren’t married in a Christian church. You only have to read The Old Testament to discover all that polygamy, and we certainly shouldn’t mention David and Jonathan.

So it’s about time we had a plebiscite on this issue because Parliament shouldn’t decide it. And not just a plebiscite where all Australia gets to vote because that might allow the majority to run roughshod over the views of those who oppose it. Similarly, a Constitutional referendum, in spite of how rarely they succeed, might actually lead to a result allowing gay people to marry.

No, it needs to be a vote by people who’d be performing the marriage ceremony. Because they’re the ones that this affects. But this needs to be balanced by allowing National Party members to vote in a ratio of two to every vote in favour of same sex marriage by a member of the clergy.

I mean, Catholic priests aren’t allowed to marry, so why on earth should people who don’t even believe in God? Which one can presume about gay people because if they believed in God then surely they wouldn’t want to spend their life only living with people of the same sex. Unless they were a priest, of course, in which case it’s ok.

Or a Prime Minister, who decided that he’d rather stay with the AFP in Canberra than rent a house.

Anyway, forget all that because we’ve just discovered that things have changed as far as Syria is concerned. Apparently, some sort of civil war has broken out and if something isn’t done, then Malcom Turnbull may actually stop doing his Peter Costello impersonation and actually launch a challenge.

The situation in Syria is almost as bad.

And we need to help the USA because they don’t have enough bombs of their own, so some help from Australia is needed. There’s nothing like the sight of the Australian Prime Minister fare-welling our troops to put fear into the hearts of Australia’s enemies.

And it makes those terrorists in the Middle East concerned too.

The desperation of marriage equality opponents

July 7, 2015
Written by: Eva Cripps
23 Replies

A disturbing trend is emerging in the same-sex marriage debate. Reminiscent of a child throwing a tantrum, individuals and representatives of organisations opposed to equality are stamping their feet and resorting to more desperate threats. While it may be easy to write these people off as educationally challenged, for the most part they are not. So what on earth makes grown men and women resort to infantile tactics to fight the prospect of gay marriage being legalised in Australia?

Marriage is presently only legal between a consenting adult man and woman. If marriage equality were achieved, the only part to change would be the man and woman part. It would be replaced with something gender inclusive and non-specific, like ‘two people’ or ‘two persons’. This automatically removes any of the absurd arguments that a change would lead to legalising polygamy or the marriage between a man and his dog.

The Marriage Act also sensibly requires adult partners, who cannot be a direct blood relation or legal guardian, to voluntarily enter into marriage, quashing the ridiculous notion that if marriage is about ‘love’, parents will suddenly be able to marry their children.

After clearing up these points on definition, the remaining arguments against marriage equality are somewhat illogical and ever-increasingly desperate.

People who are not personally impacted by same-sex marriage (assuming they are not secretly gay and commitment-phobic), are resorting to bizarre threats to attempt to stop what they perceive as legitimising the ‘homosexual lifestyle’.

But what is this ‘homosexual lifestyle’ and why is it such a threat to the vocal minority?

Are they afraid that gay love and gay sex and gay household distribution of chores and gay financial support and gay parental responsibilities and gay picnics at the park or gay walks along the beach will become the norm?

Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, is one of the conservative white men standing in the way of same-sex marriage. He famously stated in 2010 that he felt ‘threatened’ by homosexuals and that homosexuality challenged the ‘right order of things’. Abbott preferred a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to gay relationships.

However traditionally stereotyped gender roles are the only things threatened by same-sex marriage. For someone like Tony Abbott, who believed the biggest achievement for women was the repeal of the carbon tax, it is conceivable he would be confused about which of two women in a same-sex marriage would do the ironing.

Same-sex marriage is about equality. It is about social acceptable and approval. It is about removing institutionalised discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is about removing different laws for people based on who they are. It’s about taking the ‘gay’ out of the debate and making it irrelevant to the right to marry the person of choice.

In the latest petulant threat, the Presbyterian Church of NSW has discussed withdrawing from performing legal marriage ceremonies if equality is achieved.

Seriously.

It’s not clear what the Church hopes to gain from this, other than to make a statement of its support of discrimination and outdated beliefs based on selected text from a religious book.

But in reality, boycotting legal marriage will only impact on heterosexual couples of that religious denomination who actually desire a legal marriage. It will have no impact at all on same-sex couples. Much like opposite sex couples threatening to divorce.

A random woman, angry that committed, adult couples might be given the right to celebrate their love with marriage, is calling for the boycotting of businesses who publicly support equality. No Australian has yet threatened to self-immolate.

The childish threats amount to pouty foot-stomping in reaction to the rest of the country moving forward and desiring to update the rulebook in line with a modern, progressive nation.

But these threats, while hardly effective, disclose a nastiness that cannot be ignored. Attempting to force personal (religious or not) ideology and bigoted beliefs on other people in the community reinforces discriminative and dangerous views. Those who identify as LGBTI already suffer more violence, bullying and harassment than other groups in society.

The concept of moving forward with equality seems lost on senior Government Ministers, in particular, Nationals Leader, Barnaby Joyce, who alleges that Asian countries will see Australia as ‘decadent’ if it achieves marriage equality. He is afraid legalising same-sex marriage will threaten the livestock trade with Asia, despite New Zealand having seen no adverse consequences. It’s surprising he hasn’t called for the reintroduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for gays to win favour with Australia’s trading partners.

Not content with seeking validation from Asia on domestic equality policy, Senator Eric Abetz unhelpfully suggested frontbenchers should resign for representing the majority view of Australians.

However the most harmful of arguments comes from those who believe same-sex marriage will damage children. This is a favoured argument from the Australian Christian Lobby, who is demonising every parent who has raised non-biological children. The Catholics are also weighing in, ensuring children are further stigmatised by distributing an anti-same-sex marriage booklet to its private schools.

Outspoken opponents, relying on religious arguments while ignoring that the majority of Christians support same-sex marriage, argue for the ‘rights of the child’. They discard studies which show children of gay parents turn out just fine. They point out that children of gay couples might be subject to bullying, without acknowledging that it is their own bigoted views and institutionalised discrimination that supports this. They fail to accept that if they demonstrated Christian values, like empathy, compassion and unconditional love, perhaps children of gay couples would cease to be targeted.

Australia is one of the last western democracies to legalise marriage equality after the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favour of same-sex marriage. But Abbott is unperturbed. He states there is little chance of a marriage equality bill being debated or put to the vote on his watch.

Same-sex marriage isn’t the threat.

The threat is turning to outdated religious codes to justify inequality, intolerance and discrimination. The threat is people who live by those same religious codes, persecuting and vilifying people because of sexual orientation. The threat is allowing fundamentalists and extremists to push their own views on the rest of the Australian public, fuelling more hate and discrimination.

And then there is Abbott, ensuring his personal beliefs remain entrenched in legislation to lessen the discomfort he feels about same-sex relationships. Abbott proclaims that he stands for ‘all of us’, that his party has always been the one to ‘turn on the lights’ and he ‘seeks hope, reward and opportunity for everyone’.

Unless that hope and opportunity threatens his personal ideology. Then he will stand in the way of equality and attempt to turn out that light.

Abbott caught between a rock and a hard place on marriage equality

July 5, 2015
Written by: John Lord
9 Replies

One of the more illuminating aspects of Abbott’s predictable reaction to the co party sponsored legislation on same-sex marriage is that it highlights just how conservative the Coalition has become. And it’s not only on this issue. They have adopted many of the base instincts of American Republicanism and its nutty offshoot, The Tea Party. They are now so far to the right that they are in danger, if they go any further, of falling of the flat earth they believe in. To illustrate just how out of touch they are with public opinion on the issue consider this:

82 (three quarters) of Government members oppose marriage equality, 18 are for it and 23 are undecided.

Abbott’s response to the Private Members Bill was dismissive and swift saying that there were more important issues and it was low priority. He had, it seems, forgotten that he had promised a party room debate if such a bill was presented.

He says Private Members Bills are unusual and rarely acted on yet produced 9 himself when in opposition.

Reading between the lines of the Prime Minister’s statements it seems, despite the promise, he is prepared to delay it for as long as he can.

And this from Government Whip Andrew Nikolic who heads the committee that decides on what legislation comes before the Parliament: “MPs who expect a vote on same-sex marriage any time soon must have rocks in their head”.

They are treating this issue the same they treat climate change. They confess belief and concern but every decision they make is contrary to the professed concern which in truth, means they really are deniers.

With same-sex marriage they say it is an issue, but a minor one, and set about doing everything possible to prevent it happening which in reality displays homophobic religious bigotry.

Anthony Albanese probably summed up the Prime Minister and his Government with this gem of a comment on television:

“They are stuck in the past and they want everyone to go back there and keep them company”.

I have written at length on this subject in my piece Gay Marriage and Why I Support It. In it I covered the history of marriage, the conflict with religion and the current status of gay marriage. The religious influence I also covered in The Future of Faith in Australia.

In this piece I address the issue as it stands now.

Eric Abetz, the man who lives on weird street, as if to confirm a reputation for conservative homophobic negativity writes an article in which on many levels he draws conclusions and makes assumptions that are blatantly wrong.

But firstly let me put the issue in perspective. It has moved on from being a debate about people of the same-sex being able to marry, in the conventional sense, to that of one about equality. I fail to see, given that love has no gender, why two people regardless of gender should not be availed of the same opportunity.

On the issue of love

There are males in my life whom I can say I really love because their goodness transcends self, and manifests itself in empathy towards others. To love someone of the same-sex is as normal as loving someone of the opposite sex. This is because love has many faces and surpasses gender. Indeed love is when there is an irresistible urge for the need of the affection of another and the irresistibility is of its nature mutual. Gender has nothing to do with it.

Bible references

2 Samuel 1:26 – I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

1 Samuel 18:3 – Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 18:1 – And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

It’s the same as loving our children. We don’t love one more or less than the other. We just love them differently.

Now back to the Senator. He seems to want to protect an institution that he considers the complete domain of the church (which it isn’t) without admitting that because in Australia 50% of marriages fail, it is a failed one. If the Senator could for a minute take his head out of the dark religious cloud of bigotry it is trapped in he might just see that by allowing gays to marry the institution might just regain its legitimacy.

The public support for the proposal is overwhelming. 400 companies have signed a letter of support. Major sporting bodies including the AFL and the NRL have also.

He berates the media for focusing on an issue of little importance and instead reckons it should give prominence to some tiny island in the pacific that has rejected gay marriage.

He is ably supported by Andrew Robb who in response to a question about the Coalition’s attitude to the co-sponsored Private Members Bill on same sex marriage said:

“None of the millions of families out there who are concerned about their jobs and paying the bills will thank us for being preoccupied for weeks and weeks with this issue”.

Conveniently, it seems, forgetting the inconvenient truth that some of those families might – in fact, wait, definitely do – including same-sex couples.

And to think he negotiated three international trade deals!

The good Senator also suggests that we should be following Asia which thus far doesn’t condone gay marriage. So I take it that it’s fine to follow America into war (as we do) but not marriage equality.

Then he suggests that decisions that could “dramatically transform society” should be determined by the people.

In doing so he ignores opinion polls that over a long period have favored gay marriage. 72% by Morgan over 60% by Essential. Other polls show that 76% of Coalition members support a conscience vote. 53% of Christians are in favor.

He also says that Marriage has “always existed just for one man and one woman”!

This is of course is simply not true. It was once polygamous, love had nothing to do with it. Men married pre-pubescent girls. It was one the domain of the church but is now the states responsibility.

It has changed dramatically over the years: there’s far fewer child brides these days, interracial couples can get married and it’s fair to say we’ve come a long way on divorce.

Then, like others of his ilk, Abetz raises the issue of children saying they need both a mother and a father. Again he ignores the fact that a stable upbringing between two adults of the same-sex is far better than being raised by two separated ones continuously in conflict. There are ample studies that show folk of the same- make excellent parents.

If the Senator could produce evidence to the contrary he should.

Here are two links that say there is no evidence that same-sex couples aren’t capable of raising happy and healthy children.

Australian Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

He further says that The Coalition is here to protect the institution of marriage, “just as we did at the last election”!

So he and the government of which he is a senior member has no compunction in breaking promises at will and changing their mind when it suits them to politically do so.

It’s just that on this issue it seems it cannot align itself with public thinking.

This Government may indeed have an inherent hatred of pensioners, asylum seekers, the poor, Muslims, Aborigines, students in public education, unionists, the unemployed, those on welfare, the ABC, equality opportunity, but they reserve a special kind of religious hatred for people of the same sex who have the audacity to seek to have their love confirmed in marriage.

In delaying the passage of the bill the Prime Minister is placing himself between a rock and a hard place thus ensuring the issue will be front and centre at the next election.

If he rejects it he will be seen as grossly out of touch with the electorate. If he allows a conscience vote he will alienate his own supporter base. If he allows it to fester it will become an election issue. Blocking what is inevitable, inevitably leads to defeat.

“The world is full of love unspoken that dares not speak its name”.

Gay Marriage and why Australia is the developed country left behind

June 27, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
10 Replies

While many Australians are also celebrating the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the United States, they are appalled that our own government treats this as an issue they consider irrelevant to our society, writes Paul McMahon.

I am gay. This is true – you can tell me that God is against me (I have never spoken to him so I can believe you), you can say that I would harm a child (as have many parents who abandon them) and you can say that homosexuality is unnatural (please refer to the millions who feel this same condition and please outline the scientific proof that it is not biological and how this can be proven).

The USA finally made Gay Marriage legal and I for one support this shift. It has been occurring in countries globally from Brazil to the UK and from Mexico to Ireland. But it is today that we are clenching on true freedom. Why?

This is occurring, as the USA has always been a beacon of hope for so many social issues. This came from the end of slavery to the promotion of women’s rights. The USA has been our true indication of where our world is going in modern times. Why?

The USA represents the collision course of British democracy, old colonial wealth and the mix of cultures this reality brought. Now that the USA has legalised same-sex marriage it puts a disgusting conservative black rain over the current Australian Government.

I read a letter last night that a number of young children wrote to the Prime Minister. The children were confused as to why Gay Marriage in Australia continued to be discriminatory. Why we were so far behind the world despite so far ahead in many indicators of society. Our next generation was starting to show confusion.

I saw a reply by Tony Abbott to one letter that said he did not condone Gay Marriage in Australia. I repeat that for you.

Tony Abbott does not condone the legalisation of marriage equality because it does not speak to his voters. He is therefore nullifying the public discourse because he disagrees with equality and a host of other socially apt points of view.

This is a simple truth that I am disgusted (vomits) that our political leader contends to us. Being a Gay Man and going through the trauma of being one in a society that frowns upon Gay Union is a sad day. Our leader condones other like minded situations – the colonisation of the British, Aboriginals not being legal citizens and therefore unable to vote, women should not vote and we should continue to separate bus seats for White and Black people.

These are horrific comparisons to say that we are living in an age where a political leader of his calibre condones such treatment. I unfortunately use this line of argument because it is true. I am unable to marry the one I love because I am A GAY. I am gay and therefore I must be treated as a lower class citizen.

I’m sorry, Tony Abbott but this is not on. This is not the Australian Society I was born into – where change is left behind and social progress should be ignored. It is a time that I do not ask for better social service support for the sick or better investment in sustainable energy. Those would be nice things but that will have to come at a later date.

I want marriage equality. I want kids to stop being discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. I am Australian. I was legally born here. My parents were legally born here. I am Australian. I do not have dual citizenship like you Tony Abbott. I just want fair equality for our children and all Gay people in our country – the gays or a gay if you like. Is that what we are called? Like a shop or an a garage. Whatever line you take I think it is time and I have had enough. We can no longer accept your treatment and tears or fears created by your administration.

Unless Gay Marriage is legalised in Australia, I wish for the Abbott Government to leave Parliament immediately. A discriminatory government is not Australia’s future and never in our best interest.

I hope we can all agree on that fact – gay or straight we are one people.

Paul McMahon is an up and coming author as – a result of the accident where he fell 3.5 floors off a building to concrete. He survived. He has a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/paulmcmahonauthor that you can follow if you like the story or like his travel blog. The message is that you should always be proud to be alive, so many do not have that privilege. The worst accident in the world can still direct you into bliss and prosperity.

I never said that . . . and if I did I didn’t mean it

September 6, 2014
Written by: Kaye Lee
18 Replies

“In a week or so the governor-general will swear in a new government. A government that says what it means, and means what it says. A government of no surprises and no excuses. A government that understands the limits of power as well as its potential. And a government that accepts that it will be judged more by its deeds than by its mere words.” – Tony Abbott’s election night victory speech in September 2013.

It turns out the hardest part has been working out what they are actually saying. I didn’t say that, I was misunderstood, they cut me off, I was misquoted, I think you’ll find what I actually said . . .

The Gonski backflip was a prime example.

“But Andrew, we are going to keep our promise. We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made or the promise that some people might have liked us to make. We’re going to keep the promise that we actually made.” –Ten Network, The Bolt Report, 1 December 2013

Rewind . . .

“I can promise that no school would be worse off under the Coalition.” – Joint doorstop interview with Russell Matheson, Camden, NSW, 15 July 2013

“As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket. There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding.” –Joint press conference with Christopher Pyne and Alan Tudge, St Andrew’s Christian College, 2 August 2013

“In order to ensure funding certainty, we will honour the deals that the government has so far made and we will match the offers that the government has so far made in terms of funding.” –Interviewed by Sabra Lane, ABC Radio’s AM, 5 August 2013

“Mr Rudd’s scare that the Coalition is going to cut money out of education is simply false.” –Joint press conference with Christopher Pyne and Barry O’Farrell, Penrith, 29 August 2013

Christopher Pyne, who became education minister after the election, also said this in August: “You can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.” -2 August 2013

Neglecting the fact that the Liberal party is part of a Coalition, Tony Abbott also said he would not be doing any deals with minor parties to form government.

“I won’t be doing deals with independents and minor parties.” -Press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, 4 August 2013

Now as far as I remember, unlike the Liberal party, the Labor party did not form a coalition to form government. They negotiated with the Greens and Independents on certain legislation.

As soon as Abbott took over, Hockey negotiated with the Greens to lift the debt ceiling by $200 billion. They agreed to abolish it altogether in return for increased transparency around the true position of the government’s finances. Either we misheard or they have a different idea about what “true” means.

Then we had the coup d’PUP where Clive got rid of the mining tax. To achieve that personally desirable outcome, all Clive had to do was agree to the government breaking its promise to not make any adverse changes to superannuation.

In February 2013, after Hockey let slip that the Coalition would be cutting the increase to the superannuation guarantee, he quickly backtracked, complaining on Twitter about being misrepresented. “What an MRRT debacle . . . Despite Govt’s failures we remain committed to not rescinding the increase in compulsory superannuation from 9-12%.” After the Nine Network had accurately reported his remarks, he followed it up with “Would be nice if Nine News had checked the facts…Coalition remains committed to keeping increase in compulsory superannuation from 9-12%.”

In May 2013, Tony Abbott promised not to make any unexpected negative changes to super and then, two weeks later, announced they were freezing the Superannuation Guarantee increase for 2 years. This has now become 7 years, but it’s Labor’s fault for not agreeing to abolish the mining tax . . . apparently.

Eric Abetz was also a victim of the media when he said on The Project that studies linked breast cancer to abortion. After the inevitable outcry at this ridiculous statement, Senator Abetz said he had been cut off before he could finish his sentence. Then he claimed that the interview was pre-recorded and it was “heavily edited” and he was misrepresented and taken out of context.

And then there was Tony telling us we heard him wrong about gay marriage being a fad.

“I’m not saying that our culture and our traditions are perfect. But we have to respect them and my idea is to build on the strength of our society and I support by and large evolutionary change. I’m not someone who wants to see radical changes based on the fashion of the moment.” – interviewed by John Laws, Radio 2SM, Sydney, 14 August 2013

A few days later, journalist Paul Bongiorno asked Abbott whether he still thought same-sex marriage was a fad.

Abbott said: “Well, that’s not what I said, Paul.”

Bongiorno: “Well, you said it was a fad and a fashion.”

Abbott: “I was having a general chat about the conservative mindset with John Laws.”

-Network Ten’s Meet the Press, 19 August 2013

Tony’s taxation talk has also been a series of tall tales.

“To the best of my recollection, there were no tax increases whatsoever in the life of the Coalition government.” -interviewed by Virginia Triolo, ABC TV’s Lateline, 16 May 2008

Virginia was quick to interject “Unless you include the GST?”

And who could forget that most cringeworthy of interviews with Kerry O’Brien about introducing a levy to pay for his paid parental leave scheme one month after saying he wouldn’t.

ABBOTT: “But the thing is I made a statement in a radio interview in February and then I think in March I made a commitment to paid parental leave. Now …”

O’BRIEN: “Which was the opposite of what you’d said the month before.”

ABBOTT: “Well, it wasn’t absolutely consistent with what I said the month before.”

O’BRIEN: “It was the opposite! One month you say no new tax, the next month you say a $2.7 billion tax.”

ABBOTT: “OK… There is a bit of inconsistency.”

-ABC TV’s The 7:30 Report, 17 May 2010

The same promises were made going in to the last election.

“The only party which is going to increase taxes after the election is the Labor Party.” -Joint press conference with Greg Hunt and Bill Glasson, Brisbane, 9 August 2013.

I don’t recall any mention of a GP co-payment prior to the election, and I do recall denials even after the election particularly during the Griffith by-election.

REPORTER: “Can you guarantee there won’t be a Medicare co-payment?”

TONY ABBOTT: “Nothing is being considered, nothing has been proposed, nothing is planned.”

-Joint doorstop interview with Bill Glasson, Brisbane, 1 February 2014

REPORTER: “Would you consider a co-payment, a means testing to help relieve the pressure on the health budget?”

TONY ABBOTT: “Obviously the budget, generally, is under pressure and it’s very important that we do what we can to fix the budget, as quickly as we can, but we’ve got to do it in ways which are consistent with our pre-election commitments. Don’t forget, I said we were going to be a no surprises, no excuses government.”

-Doorstop interview, Sydney, 20 February 2014

REPORTER: “In light of the latest scare campaign however, can’t you just knock it on the head, pull the rug out from under Labor’s scare campaign and guarantee no co-payments?”

TONY ABBOTT: “Well I think I have knocked the scare campaign on the head and again this is all the Labor Party has got.”

REPORTER: “But what would be wrong with the co-payments? Surely there are arguments in favour of it?”

TONY ABBOTT: “I’ve dealt with this issue. Now, are there other questions?”

-Doorstop interview, Sydney, 20 February 2014

The fuel excise and high income earners’ temporary increase in marginal rate would also appear to be new taxes from the government who yelled “No new taxes without an election” with a rabid crowd of Alan Jones supporters.

Before the election, Tony was a fan of the car industry.

“What I want to do is make it easier for this industry to flourish. I want to make it easier for people to get on with their lives and to enjoy driving great motor cars, particularly great Australian made motor cars.” –28 July 2013

“We have a good record when it comes to working with the car manufacturers to help them, not just to survive, but to flourish, and we will act in that same spirit in the future.” –21 August 2013

After the election . . . not so much.

Even Tony describes himself as a weathervane on climate change and one could be forgiven for being uncertain what he actually said – he seems uncertain himself.

“The argument is absolute crap . . . However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.” -Public meeting, Beaufort, Vic, circa 1 October 2009, on the reliability of climate science, reported in the Pyrenees Advocate, 2 Oct 2009, p 5

TONY JONES: “Do you still believe the science of human induced climate change is crap?”

TONY ABBOTT: “Well, that’s not quite what I said. What I said was that this idea that the science was settled was not something that I wholly accepted.”

-ABC TV’s Q&A, 16 August 2010

We all know the wrecking ball quotes Tony used to vilify the carbon tax and he was just as loose with the truth about the mining tax.

“You may not have noticed it, but every year there’s a well-respected international survey of safe places to do mining business and thanks to the mining tax, Australia has dropped 13 places in just 12 months, and as a place to do business, a safe place to do business, Australia is now behind Argentina, Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana, Botswana and Namibia. Now, these are all normally regarded as pretty dodgy places and Australia is now behind them as a place to do business. So, how can the Government claim to be good economic managers if that’s what they’ve done to our international reputation?” –Interviewed by John-Michael Howson and Steve Murphy, Radio 3AW, Melbourne, 15 August 2010

The Behre Dolbear Group’s 2010 Mining Survey placed Australia No.1 on the list for ‘Best Places to Invest’, having replaced Chile, which held the No.1 ranking in 2009. Australia went on to retain the No.1 ranking in both 2011 and 2012. But why let little things like that get in the road of a good story, or an enormous superprofit.

Tony assures us that Labor wrecked the economy and that the Coalition must fix up the economic disaster.

“We’ve seen [in] the last three years…an economy which has underperformed . . .” –14 August 2013

Not only had Australia maintained its AAA credit rating and relatively low unemployment rate in a global environment in which Europe and the USA had major problems, Australia had actually improved its economic situation since 2007 on most measures: GDP per capita had climbed 13%; real wages had increased 27%; household savings had more than doubled; labour productivity was at an all-time high; pension levels were up; superannuation was up; the Australian dollar was up; industrial production growth was up; foreign exchange reserves were up; the balance of trade had improved; the current account as a percentage of GDP was healthier; the government ten-year bond rate had improved; interest rates were lower.

I will finish with a few more of Tony’s quotes

“I’ve seen the disaster that this government has done for itself by saying one thing and doing another, Jon. I don’t want to be like that. I really don’t. If we do win the election and we immediately say, oh, we got it all wrong, we’ve now got to do all these different things, we will instantly be just as bad as the current government has been and I just refuse to be like that… Before polling day you’ll know exactly what we’re going to spend, exactly what we’re going to save, and exactly how much better the budget bottom line will be under the Coalition.” -Interviewed by Jon Faine, ABC Radio 774, Melbourne, 30 August 2013

“No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.” -on SBS TV on election eve, 6 September 2013

And my personal favourite

“We have well and truly learnt our lesson. The last thing we want to do is expose ourselves to the wrath of the Howard battlers.” -ABC TV’s Q&A, 5 April 2010

It appears to me that Tony has forgotten the lesson.

George stamps his Brand.

August 6, 2014
Written by: Kaye Lee
57 Replies

As Attorneys General go, one would have to concede that George Brandis is more high profile than most but a quick review of his “achievements” so far shows a sorry lack of perspective for the highest lawmaker in the land and many inconsistencies.

After his relentless pursuit of Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, an unapologetic Brandis was forced to repay $1683.06 in taxpayer-funded entitlements he claimed after attending the wedding of a close friend, shock jock Michael Smith, despite saying he did nothing wrong.

In a letter to the Department of Finance, Senator Brandis said he considered the costs were within parliamentary entitlements, “since they were incurred in the course of attendance at a function primarily for work-related purposes”.

He added: “I remain of that view.”

We then had the debacle of the Brandis library. More than $15,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on a second custom-built bookcase to house Attorney-General George Brandis’ extensive collection of books and law reports because the one we paid $7000 for in 2010 was too big to move to his new office.

Last year Senator Brandis defended spending $13,000 on reading materials including political thriller The Marmalade Files, Best Australian Political Cartoons and Christopher Hitchens’ autobiography Hitch-22.

As Minister for the Arts, Senator Brandis said he was also the “Minister for Books”.

One of Senator Brandis’ first actions was to have the ACT gay marriage laws repealed. This was only possible because Howard changed the marriage act to define it as between a “man and a woman”.

George also embarked on a “bonfire of regulations to cut red tape”. This included earth shattering reforms likes changing the word e-mail to email and facsimile to fax and trademark to trade mark as well as repealing laws such as the one which regulates how long a senior cadet drills for.

As Minister for the Arts, Brandis expressed outrage when the Biennale of Sydney chose to reject private sponsorship from Transfield when nine artists threatened to boycott the event in protest at the sponsor’s involvement in off-shore detention centres. He sent a strongly worded letter to the Australia Council which signalled a significant shake-up of arts funding to avoid political “blackballing”, in the wake of what he described as the “shameful” decision.

“You will readily understand,” writes the minister, “that taxpayers will say to themselves: ‘If the Sydney Biennale doesn’t need Transfield’s money, why should they be asking for ours?’ ”

He directed the Australia Council to develop a policy so that it would be a condition of the receipt of Australia Council funding that the arts organisation concerned not unreasonably refuse or unreasonably terminate private sponsorship. I wonder if that means they must accept sponsorship from tobacco companies.

Punishment was swift with the budget announcing

“Uncommitted funding to arts programs administered by the Attorney‑General’s Department will be reduced, a move that will directly affect the Australia Council and Screen Australia. Savings of A$87.1 million over four years will be achieved, with cuts to Screen Australia of A$25.1m over four years, and cuts to Australia Council of A$28.2m.

Funding for the Adelaide Festival Centre’s support for Asian cultural activities will also be ceased, with an estimated saving of A$1.8 million.”

One group who did well in the budget was the Australian Ballet School which immediately put the extra $1 million they were given towards the purchase of a $4.7 million Melbourne mansion. The fact that the wife of former Liberal Arts Minister Rod Kemp (now chairman of right-wing lobby group the Institute of Public Affairs) is on the Ballet School’s board had nothing to do with the funding announced in the budget, according to those involved.

Budget pain from Brandis was not confined to the Arts and started as soon as he got his hands on the reins.

Last year, as shadow Attorney General, George Brandis shared the stage with Mark Dreyfuss at a legal conference in Melbourne. They both agreed that improving access to justice by increasing funding for legal assistance was vital after the decimation of the Howard years.

Demand for free legal services far exceeds capacity due to chronic underfunding, a problem acknowledged by repeated government inquiries. The consequence is that many people can’t get the legal help they need for problems such as employment law, family violence, debt and tenancy issues.

Yet in his first months of office, even before the report of the Commission of Audit (let alone his government’s first budget), Brandis announced a massive cut to Commonwealth legal assistance funding. The $10m that the Gillard government had provided to bolster environment defenders’ offices, and that had already been contracted for, was stripped away through a claw-back provision that allows for funding contracts to be broken where there is a change of government policy, even though this government appears bereft of an environmental policy.

Brandis also stripped over $13m from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal assistance services, despite the unequivocal evidence of unmet legal need in Indigenous communities across Australia. Included in this was $3.6m withdrawn from Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (IFVPLS), a particularly cruel decision given the horrific cycles of family violence gripping some Aboriginal communities.

An Aboriginal woman explained to the ABC the importance of having a culturally sensitive service.

“It meant that I didn’t need to have to explain my position as an Aboriginal woman and mother,” she said.

“It meant that I was working with Aboriginal workers as well, and it meant that when I have the service in court that they were able to speak as if I was the one that was speaking about my situation as an Aboriginal woman.”

The Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service told a recent inquiry that the vast majority of their work is in assistance for women who have had their children removed by child protection services. Such removals are causing immense pain in communities. This year, almost 14,000 Aboriginal children were in “out-of-home-care”, more than were removed at any time during the Stolen Generations. This is five times the numbers in care when the landmark Bringing Them Home report was delivered 1997, despite its warnings that the dynamics of the Stolen Generations remained present.

Australia wide, Aboriginal children are 31 times more likely to be incarcerated. But the Liberal government in Queensland is set to change legislation dealing with juvenile offenders, removing clauses citing detention as a “last resort”. Shane Duffy, the chairperson of the peak National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS), has called for an urgent intervention from the UN to stop the terrible impact this will have on Aboriginal children.

But NATSILS too have just had their funding completely withdrawn, knee-capping such advocacy. Across Australia, Aboriginal legal services will have all their policy officer positions cut and are anticipating future funding agreements will prohibit them advocating publicly around the issues affecting their people.

An independent economic cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the National Association of Community Legal Centres highlights the economic case for properly funded legal services. The analysis showed that every dollar spent by government on community legal centres returned, on average, $18 in economic benefit to society.

At the same time, he found more than $2m to give to those who are opposing native title claims.

He also made the inexplicable decision to appoint Tim Wilson, a man with no qualifications or experience and who did not have to go through an application or interview process, as Human Rights Commissioner drawing a salary of $389,000 a year. To accommodate this act of nepotism, Brandis sacked Graeme Ennis, the Commissioner for the Disabled who has spent many years in tireless advocacy and who is responsible for many of the reforms that have allowed our disabled to live with dignity.

Wilson’s whole raison d’etre was to champion the repeal of the ‘Bolt laws’, which now renders him pointless as Tony has decided to drop the whole affair after enormous public and internal backlash.

Senator Brandis is stirring up hornets’ nests internationally too.

First there was his inept handling of the ASIO raids on East Timor’s Australian based lawyer. He proudly announced these raids by press release, only to discover that he had touched off an international incident that would embarrass Australian internationally and land us in the international court of justice – this time as a defendant accused of breaching due process and the national sovereignty of our poor neighbour.

Then there was the astonishing argument over whether East Jerusalem should be referred to as “Occupied” or “disputed”. This was sparked when Senator Lee Rhiannon asked why the Australian ambassador met with the Israeli housing minister in Occupied East Jerusalem. Brandis, rather than answering, refused to countenance the word “occupied”.

Rhiannon: “You do not use the term ‘occupied’ even though it is a United Nations term used widely by a number of international agencies like the European Union etc?”

Brandis: “It is used by a lot of people. It is used by a lot of communists too. Weren’t you a member of the Communist Party once?…….The point I made, is that the Australian government does not refer to East Jerusalem by the descriptor ‘occupied East Jerusalem’. We speak of East Jerusalem.”

The timing of this for the Peter Greste case was diabolical.

After his infamous speech in defence of bigots where Senator Brandis protected their right to be offensive, I was rather surprised to hear that George has accused Fairfax Media of publishing anti-Semitic coverage of the Middle East, and denounced a cartoon in The Sydney Morning Herald depicting a Jewish man with an exaggerated nose as comparable to propaganda from Nazi Germany.

Asked if the cartoon amounted to racial vilification and could encourage or incite others to hate Jews, Senator Brandis said: “It certainly constitutes a racial form of stereotyping. I think The Sydney Morning Herald and Fairfax Media in general ought to be very careful about the almost overtly anti-Semitic tone some of their commentary, including their editorial cartoon, have adopted.”

But stereotyping people of Aboriginal descent is just fine apparently, as are front pages depicting MPs as fascists.

And now we will spend $630 million on the new proposed anti-terrorism laws which will compel telcos to keep our long term metadata and will broaden powers to detain people with the onus on them to prove their innocence.

We can actually thank them, along with Brandis’ bigot speech and the 5000 responses it prompted, for the dropping of the Section 18c changes. The Prime Minister’s view was that the overwhelmingly negative feedback about the changes, combined with the proposed anti-terror laws, meant the government could no longer keep Muslims offside.

When Brandis should have been vocal, there was “craven silence from the Australian government about the grave constitutional crisis in Nauru, where the chief justice and resident magistrate have been illegally deposed by the government.”

Likewise, he has been silent on the assault on our civil liberties imposed by Queensland’s draconian anti-bikie laws.

Perhaps some of George’s problems stem from his statement “when I want to know what’s going on in politics, I turn to Fox News, not the ABC.”

Or perhaps he’s just not very bright.

Why This Post Is Not About Ian Thorpe Even Though A Lamb Roast Might Still Cost $100!

July 14, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
53 Replies

“As some of you may have guessed, I’m a practising heterosexual. Yeah, I don’t know why that would be of interest to anyone either, but I just thought I’d save Sir Michael Parkinson the trouble of asking me!”

My Facebook status last night.

I guess the trouble I have with the discussion about Thorpey’s big announcement is the idea that it’s a big announcement.

And the trouble I have with saying “Who cares?” is that it makes it sound like we’re dismissing something that would have been a difficult personal decision.

But I think that I most have a problem with the person I heard describe Ian Thorpe’s decision to reveal that he’s gay as “brave”.

Yep, good on him for coming out. But if we still regard this as brave, then that’s an indictment on us as a society. This just shows that we still have a long way to go. It should be of no more newsworthy than my pronouncement.

“Wow, Rossleigh, you’ve admitted to being straight – how brave of you!”

(Well, maybe a little bit more, given that more people have heard of him.)

But I guess that’s the difficulty. What’s the most supportive response from the public for him as individual? So what? or You’re really brave! And what implications does either have to the young teenager coming to terms with his or her own sexuality?

In a display of hypocrisy worthy of Tony Abbott, I’d like to suggest that the main issue of today shouldn’t be Thorpey’s sexuality. (Yes, so why am I writing about? Yes, yes, I know with a contradiction like this I could join Abbott’s front bench or take over Andrew Bolt’s job.)

There are more important things we should be talking about. Like the fact that Abbott said today in Parliament that unless the Carbon Tax is repealed lamb roasts could still hit $100 just as Barnaby predicted. (Actually, I think that it’s inevitable – eventually – even without the Carbon Tax)

Or even the fact that gay marriage is described as a needless distraction every time it’s brought up. (Well, just legalise it and it’d be less of a “distraction”…)

Or let’s just think about the way in which we perceive what’s important.

Stay awesome. Tell the truth. Be who you are.

Cheers.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

With friends like Bolt and Jones, you don’t need enemas OR SNAFU

June 7, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
13 Replies

SNAFU – Situation Normal, All Fouled Up! (That’s the polite version anyway.)
“…I just have to say to Mr. Bolt, he proclaims loudly that he is a friend of the government, well with friends like Bolt we don’t need any enemies.” Malcolm Turnbull, earlier this week.

“Alan is a friend of mine, Andrew Bolt is a friend of mine, I think that they are both very significant commentators and they’ve got a lot to say as you know.” Tony Abbott, yesterday.

“You said I wanted to diminish you. The truth is I don’t. You said I wanted to challenge you in 2016. The truth is I don’t. You said I wanted the presidency for myself. The truth is… I do. What politician hasn’t dreamed of about what it would be like to take the oath of the highest office of our land? I’ve stared at your desk in the Oval and coveted it. The power. The prestige. Those things have a strong pull on someone like me, who came from a small South Carolina town with nothing. But since you assumed office, my only aim has been to fight, for you and alongside you.” Frank Underwood, “House of Cards”

“I’ve coached Australia in rugby, if one of my players was seen on the eve of the rugby test was seen … having dinner, privately inviting to dinner one of the All Blacks, the player would be sent home Malcolm.” Alan Jones.

When the choice is between a conspiracy and stuff-up, always choose the stuff-up and you’ll be right more often, according to conventional wisdom.

All right, must of us heard the loooong pause from Turnbull when asked if this was part of a co-ordinated campaign. The question, of course, is what is the campaign and what does it hope to achieve?

Ok, let’s examine the conspiracy theories for why Bolt and Jones would want to give the story about Turnbull’s leadership ambition so much publicity. The first is that it’s a way to distract from the Budget. The second is that they hate Turnbull and are just using this as a chance to whack him, while boosting their ratings. The third is that they’re part of a conspiracy to help remove Turnbull from the front bench.

Of these, the idea that it’s the Liberals way of taking the focus of the Budget is the only one I’d consider if we were dealing with your average government. However, any government that can appoint Christopher Pyne to anything more than working out the seating plan for meetings with the Premiers, clearly lacks a grip on reality and we can’t just look at the logical.

The second is partly plausible. Bolt and Jones are, after all, first and foremost, reliant on their capacity to generate controversy. But would they really want to hurt the Liberal Party by helping create a re-make of the Rudd/Gillard soap opera? I mean, aren’t they “Friends of Tony Abbott”. (Mm, and it’s the ABC that are supposedly biased.)

Are the Liberals really so stupid as to think removing Turnbull would help them politically? In spite of his dinner with Clive, Malcolm has been a good little boy towing the line on all sorts of things from Direct Action to the NBN. While he may have the odd word about gay marriage or the Republic, he’s basically supported party policy. If he’s quietly biding his time, trying to boost the numbers for a crack at the leadership, this only becomes an issue when it hits the media. Which it does when people like say Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones bring it to public attention. Even the big “Dinner With Clive” event would have run out of legs by now.

But no, thanks to Bolt – Abbott’s “friend” – Turnbull’s alleged disloyalty is a hot topic. Which gives Turnbull the opportunity to deny it, thus keeping the story alive.

So, Abbott, the leader is part of a conspiracy to help put stories about his rivals leadership ambition in the media? Isn’t it usually the other way round? I mean, isn’t it usually the challenger who wants the speculation and the incumbent who wants to pretend that nothing’s happening? Perhaps, Abbott really hasn’t noticed that he’s Leader of the Opposition, let alone PM.*

Which brings us to SNAFU…

According to the polls, the Government is unpopular with the electorate. Turnbull, on the other hand, is preferred leader by a long way. While this may not be a good enough reason for the Liberals to dump Abbott and install Turnbull as PM, it hardly suggests that dumping Turnbull from the Ministry would be something that would boost their standing with the electorate. Could they really be so out of touch with political reality that they don’t see how Turnbull’s sacking would play out?

Let’s ignore the media reaction about the removal of a moderate because he’s a threat and letters to the editor complaining about how far to the Right this government has gone. Let’s just ask ourselves, how would Turnbull react?

Yes, it’s a nice fantasy to think that he’s had enough. That he goes rogue. He tells people exactly what he thinks of the Liberals and – with no hope of ever being PM – spills as many beans as he can. Or maybe he joins PUP. Or the Labor Party.

Or perhaps he, channelling Peter Costello, just gives up his dream of being PM, resigns from Parliament causing a by-election in his seat of Wentworth. Can’t see the Liberal strategists cheering for that one.

But wouldn’t the most likely scenario be for Malcolm to quietly see out his time on the backbench, occasionally having dinner with the odd friend – as Tony pointed out, journalists are sometimes friends of politicians – reminiscing and providing “off the record” comments? And, Keating-like, quietly reminding people that he’s there. While it’s true that many in the Liberal Party don’t like Turnbull, they like losing even less.

Nope, no sane, rational leader would even consider a re-shuffle where Turnbull was removed. Mm, with that in mind, he’ll be gone within the month.

But just because I’m likely to get that wrong, here are some other predictions that I’m more confident about:

The head of a retail change will suggest that the poor are just being selfish by spending their money on rent and food instead of electrical goods.
An advisor to Tony Abbott will say that owing to the fact that unemployment is so high, perhaps people could job share. That is, a group of people all work full time for the same company but share one wage.
If the Medicare co-payment gets through, there’ll be an immediate call to increase it, as it’s not covering its administration costs.
One Liberal Politician will suggest that people suggesting that the rich could pay more tax are indulging in class warfare on the same day that another suggests that people should be happy to contribute to Australia’s future by making sacrifices. A clarification will follow where the Liberals explain that paying tax is not making a sacrifice, and that sacrifices are when one throws a peasant into a volcano to appease the gods.

*In a previous blog, I pointed out the Rafael Epstein suggested to Graham Morris that the weeks after the Budget had been Abbott’s most difficult as Leader of the Opposition.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Bob Hawke is A Martian And Other Things That Are More Plausible Than The Liberals

April 27, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
40 Replies

“Now I want to emphasise my electorate of North Sydney has one of the highest bulk-billing rates in Australia and I have one of the wealthiest electorates in Australia, to me there is something wrong with that.” Joe Hockey.

Yes, Joe, there is something wrong with it. It’s just not true. In fact, your electorate has one of the lowest.

Now, I don’t want to call it a lie, because that suggests that you’ve attempted to deliberately mislead the public, and we know that it’s the other mob that does that. You just must have been misinformed, but now that you’ve been told the actual situation, I expect you’ll correct your statement. That would only be right, wouldn’t it?

Ok, we’ve grown used to politicians lying. Back in the early 90’s Bob Hawke went on TV and said that while he’d promised Keating that he’d stand down after the next election, he didn’t really mean it – it was just a ploy to convince Keating to stay on as Treasurer. I commented at the time that it struck me as quite amazing that here we had a Prime Minister admitting that they told a deliberate lie to a colleague, yet nobody was making an issue of it.

But I guess that’s a big part of the trouble. The Canberra Press Gallery are involved of the theatre of it all. They know much of the behind the scenes stuff and it’s part of their role to perpetuate the illusion, while occasionally tearing down a facade or two and saying, “Look what I’ve discovered, aren’t I a clever little journalist?” I suspect this why they failed to understand why Julia Gillard’s mysoginy speech was so well received: They viewed it cynically and saw it as connected to the politics, and overlooked the fact that, for once, the public actually heard a politician saying what they meant and saying it passionately.

Which brings me to Malcolm Turnbull. (A man who often suggests that secretly, deep-down he doesn’t go along with the extreme agenda of this government. Except that he does. Always. There’s the odd statement or two, suggesting that he really supports something like gay marriage, but because there’s no conscience vote, if it comes to a vote, he’ll just follow orders and have no conscience.) A few weeks ago, Malcolm Turnbull suggested that media ownership laws weren’t that important any more, because, well there’s such a diversity of information out there. We have the internet (which Turnbull invented in Australia, if you remember), so it’s no big deal if One Person owns all the newspapers and television stations, because people get their information from a variety of sources.

In other words, it doesn’t matter that Murdoch prints Hockey’s lie on the front page, because I’ve repudiated it here. On the internet. And you’re reading it. So you know Hockey’s lying.

But let’s think this through for a moment. Imagine for a moment that I write something that you find unbelievable. (Let’s say that a group of fundamental Christians has teamed up with a group of fundamental Muslims because they realised that they actually have so much in common that if they just worked together, they could ban homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, alcohol, and any opposition to their views.) The first thing you’ll do is check for other sources. If the mainstream media haven’t printed anything at all on the subject, you’ll probably decide that either I’m writing satire, or else I’m one of those nutters who thinks that everything is a conspiracy. Even if the mainstream media presents a story with a slant, the majority of people still rely on the mainstream media to frame the things that are worth debating. For example, we argue over whether it’s worth electing Labor or the Coalition, but we don’t have a discussion about whether there’s a role for more referendums on controversial issues. When facing elections, should we have the always have the opportunity to vote on a handful of other things as well?

If the only place you find evidence of the fact that Joe Hockey was inaccurate is on the Internet – and from just one person – you’ll tend to doubt it. If it’s only websites that give you a particular piece of information, you’ll tend to put it in the same category as the sites saying that the moon landing was faked or that Bob Hawke was a martian.

Then, of course, Mr Turnbull completely ignores one simple fact: What if the Internet starts to become censored? This is Australia, that couldn’t happen. While that seems unlikely – even far-fetched – history shows that we should never discount anything just because we believe it’s unlikely to happen.

So Mr Turnbull, I think you’re wrong. I think that even in the days of the Internet, we still need diversity.

But I guess, you’d say, we’ve always got the ABC.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Violence in our churches

April 25, 2024
Written by: Lucy Hamilton
11 Replies

New documentary poster. Bad Faith. On Apple TV.

We must always condemn violence. There must be no tolerance for brutality, and we must take action to diminish violence whether it is tied to family violence, a chronic lack of support for crucial mental health work or to sectarianism. The stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel on the weekend during his church service, days after the Bondi stabbing, demands Australia focuses on solving the causes.

The youth in question has now been charged with a terror offence after a rapid declaration that the incident was terror-related. As commentators have pointed out, however, this designation is controversial. Dai Le MP, whose electorate this involved, condemned the choice of the terror label, explaining it would inflate community anxiety.

The deployment of 400 police to seize his teenage friends, with more terror charges laid, seems another case of police overkill, and not destined to calm the current sense in Muslim communities that the West sees their lives as either worthless or an implicit threat. In a moment of youth mental health crisis, it is hardly helpful to inflict night-time raids.

Notably the placing of a bomb-like object at a Sydney property flying a Palestinian flag has not been treated the same way, despite the terror the threat provoked. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils noted the lacklustre police response to this and similar incidents. Repeated attacks on the properties of Hash Tayeh, owner of the Burgertory chain, do not receive the terror hysteria.

Bernard Keane underlines that the terror label gives police draconian powers as well as functioning as a “security blanket” that protects us from the apparent arbitrariness of violence. So-called “terror” attacks, he points out, are just as likely to relate to mental health issues.

Violence against women is also systematically connected to “terror” attacks, where there is misogyny and often an unchecked history of violence against women in men found guilty of terrorist violence. Kon Karapanagiotidis highlighted that the total number of Australians killed in terror attacks here since World War I is 16, while 642 women have been killed by male violence merely since 2014. Misogyny, as he reiterates, should be counted a much higher threat and a focus for action, not only because of its link to terror but also for the wellbeing of women.

There is an obvious reason, as Muslim community organisations have pointed out, that the attack on the Bishop was so rapidly labelled terror rather than a hate crime. Australians have a deep underlying predisposition to see Muslims and non-White people as terrorists, while our own contenders for the label are excused. It explains the electorate’s complicity with human rights-abusing treatment of our asylum seeker population over recent decades.

This predisposition underpins Prime Minister Albanese offering the “bollard” hero citizenship but neglecting the brave intervention of the two Muslim security guards in Bondi, one of whom gave his life. This refugee had come to Australia for safety and died just a year later trying to save others. It explains why Peter Dutton applauded offering “bollard man” citizenship for a display of the “Anzac spirit,” but said the response to the security guards must be “an issue for the PM.”

Andrew Hastie’s response to the two stabbings was even more illuminating. He demanded stronger national security steps from Prime Minister Albanese, because of the “strategic disorder we’re seeing in the Middle East,” reiterating his words from the “Securing our Future” National Security Conference at the ANU on the 10th of April. Hastie’s SAS time in Afghanistan or his Evangelical Christianity might feed in to this triggering of the “national security” trope, tying a deeply troubled teen to violence in the Middle East.

Hastie’s Christianity provokes him to oppose LGBTQIA+ equality. He famously delivered a “stinging rebuke” to Cooper’s brewery when it backed away from a controversial video where Hastie declared his rejection of marriage equality. While he insists on the separation of church and state, he echoes the American Christian Nationalist assertion that this is intended to keep the state out of interfering in matters of church (not the reverse). He also claims that the “Christian voice” must not be marginalised in Australia’s democracy.

The development of Christian Nationalism has been a concerted project strategised over decades in America and fostered globally in allied religio-ethnostate politics. The dark money that went into manufacturing islamophobia serves Israeli, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian Nationalists. The bigotry is accompanied by repressive morality.

The ex-communicated Bishop’s point of view is overtly in line with Christian Nationalist sentiments. LGBTQIA+ people, Emmanuel has stated, are not just sinners like the rest of us but that they commit “a crime in the sight of God.” In rejecting the Lord’s designated sex designation they commit, “the abolishment of human’s identity.” He appears to say that “LGBT” people, while he loves and prays for them, have rejected their humanity: “The moment you come out of that human identity, you are no longer in that human cycle.” In America, the dehumanising of LGBTQIA+ people is central to the project aiming to staff Trump’s administration.

The Bishop clearly identifies with the American Christian Nationalist movement that surrounds Donald Trump whom he states to be chosen by the Lord. In fact, he claims the Lord says a failure to reelect Trump in November will mean “you can kiss America goodbye,” and that “Christians will be persecuted beyond measure” if he is not elected.

After his imagined meeting with the reinstalled President Trump, the Bishop intends to fix Australia. Emmanuel will “sack everyone in the Parliament House,” and that “whoever comes with a suit, I’ll sack them.”

The people he says will run the country? “So all those big boys with muscles and tattoos, you’ll be the next ministers. The new Cabinet.”

This is deeply disturbing, even if it is meant as a joke. The excommunicated Bishop is apparently a much loved and unifying figure amongst the diaspora Christian communities who have found safe haven in Australia from persecution in the Middle East. This includes Middle Eastern Catholic, Maronite, and Coptic Christians as well as Assyrian. The Sydney Morning Herald conveyed how triggering the stabbing was to a network of communities whose sense of safety is fragile.

During the World Pride event hosted in Sydney in 2023, however, gangs of young men prominently featuring Maronite Christians were on the streets intimidating LGBTQIA+ festival goers, spitting in their faces, calling it “prayer.” Were these inspired by the “TikTok Bishop”?

It is not only LGBTQIA+ people who might be endangered by the renegade Bishop’s sermons. He also appears to spread misogyny. The UN he depicts as the “great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication.” In discussing technology, he expresses his shock at the women in entertainment who appear “fully not covered.” Apparently uncovered women “destroyed” the “human way of thinking.” It is evil, and little children “are no longer innocent” from seeing this material on social media.

The Bishop is a complicated man. Apparently he does much good but he also expresses his bigotry in his “humorous” caricatures of, for example, Koreans, as part of geopolitical fearmongering. He dismissed Islam in “many of his sermons.” The religious ethnostate and militarism are central to this Christian Nationalist worldview.

We must discuss the elements of Christian Nationalism that promote violence, whether in its demonisation of Islam and LGBTQIA+ people, or its inculcation of the misogyny that is connected to so much violence in our society.

There is no excuse for this stabbing. We must work to address the many causes, including heated rhetoric, that promote it.

A briefer version of this essay was first published in Pearls and Irritations as “The Bishop.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Promising the Impossible: Blinken’s Out of Tune Performance…

Opposition Budget in Reply: Peter Dutton has no…

Understanding the risk

A Brutal Punishment: The Sentencing of David McBride

Climate pollution and petrol bills coming down as…

Corporatocracy

Plan B

Australian federal budget falls flat in tackling inequality:…

Search Results for: gay marriage and why i support it

The Marriage Plebiscite, Brexit and What The Question Will Be…

Public schools, politics, and a religious divide

An open letter to Christians and other bigots

Why Turnbull Is So Much Better Than Tony Abbott!

Day to Day Politics: ‘How about a parliamentary plebiscite on marriage equality’

Hold everything and bomb Syria!

Abbott caught between a rock and a hard place on marriage equality

I never said that . . . and if I did I didn’t mean it

George stamps his Brand.

Why This Post Is Not About Ian Thorpe Even Though A Lamb Roast Might Still Cost $100!

With friends like Bolt and Jones, you don’t need enemas OR SNAFU

Bob Hawke is A Martian And Other Things That Are More Plausible Than The Liberals

Violence in our churches