same love, same marriage, same rights

I haven’t blogged in a very long time, partly because I no longer watch news in Australia and I am then not pushed to reply to issues. However I have just arrived back from a few months overseas to a “national survey” on marriage equality. Whilst many people I know are voting yes, I have heard various arguments on why people are voting ‘no’. I respect any opinion that is based on information and facts but I, and no one else, needs to respect opinions that are not. While all people are equal, not all opinions are equal. We cannot go around saying whatever we want and except people to acknowledge and consider any unjustified opinions equally. Whilst people are allowed to vote no, the arguments and opinions on the ‘no’ side are misguided and if possible I would happily have the debate with each person (and have with a few) that says they are voting ‘no’ based on hysteria and misinformation. Until that is possible, I have addressed them here.

Because they have equal rights under the law and de facto relationships

This is not true in Australia. There are differences in the law for de facto relationships and marriage in many areas including in property settlements and spousal maintenance. One of the most important rights which are not given to de facto couples is being the next of kin, which is extremely crucial in cases of medical emergency and death. For example, in these cases, a person in same-sex relationship may not have the right or access to their partner to make medical decisions that affect their lives or even allowed to see them. De facto couples have the burden of proof before the courts before they will be granted rights that married couples can access. Besides all these factors under the law that dismiss the claims that same-sex couples do not need to the option to marriage, it’s still beyond the point. To exclude those couples from access to marriage is discrimination.

NEXT.

Because it’s against religious teachings

‘No’ votes generally come from a religious background and interpretation, even though religion should not be a part of this debate. The question of same-sex marriage is a legal one, and religion and the law are meant to be separate in Australia. That should end the debate but it doesn’t. Just based on human rights, religion should not impact the individual rights of others. Religious freedom in Australia allows each person to choose their religion or not have a religion and that person not be discriminated against based on that choice. It does not mean that they get to use their religion to control the lives of others. People choose their religion, they then choose to interpret a book written thousands of years ago, there is no logical way those choices should override the rights of others, especially in cases like sexual orientation which is not a choice.

NEXT.

Because it infringes on religious expression

I have heard an argument that allowing marriage equality under the law, would infringe on freedom of religious expression. The argument is that once it is legal for same sex couples to marry then people would not be allowed to discriminate based on their “religion” or more accurately their views in which they use religion to justify. The example often used is where a person might be made to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. There is no law which forces people to make cakes. The issue in these cases in other countries is not that someone just didn’t make a cake, they specifically refused to make the cake because the couple was homosexual and said so. They did so in order to discriminate, to humiliate and degrade that couple for their sexual orientation. That is the part that would be against the law.  And to be honest, there will be enough amazing people making fabulous cakes for same-sex couples they would rather give their money to anyway.

NEXT.

Because they believe in ‘traditional marriage’

This is one of the main arguments used to argument for the ‘no’ vote. But honestly what does that even mean? For one, being ‘traditional’ anything does not make it automatically better. Just because we have done something for a long period of time does not mean it’s the best approach which is why laws, societies, practices and people change for the better. Specifically with marriage, ‘traditionally’ women and children were the properties of men and raping of women was legal. Did we want to go back, hold onto that type of marriage too? Also, ‘traditionally, otherwise known as up until 2004, the definition of marriage under the law did not include “man and a woman to the exclusion of all others” to exclude same-sex couples from marrying.

NEXT.

Because of the safe-school programs

Safe School’s is a national government funded program which is “aimed at creating safe and supportive school environments for same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse people by reducing homophobic and transphobic bullying and discrimination in schools”. The argument from some ‘no’ voters is that the program would be forced upon students, like has occurred in other countries. First of all, I am not sure how a program in schools which is aimed at reducing bullying and discrimination is an issue. Further to that basic and fundamentally straight forward idea, any program in schools, is introduced by considering the overall benefit to all students. That is why in other countries, when this issue has been before the courts, the law has found in favour of these programs because the law will weigh up the rights of those involved. If parents want to object to anything regarding their children in schools they can, but because a few might object does not mean that particular subject will stop. A parent who doesn’t want their children doing sports because they might get hurt cannot just object to that and the class stops because it’s to the overall benefit of students. Beyond the above, the question in the survey is directly to the equal rights of marriage between adults. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry at that very moment everything else does not automatically change. ‘No’ proponents argue that it will make it harder to oppose Safe School’s type programs, but changing the law regarding marriage back to not discriminate does not concurrently instil a law or practice that would hinder parental complaints on curriculum.

NEXT.

If you don’t like two men having sex, they already do. If you don’t like two women having children, they already do. The survey is just a question regarding the legal definition of marriage between two consenting adults. If you don’t want same-sex couples included, then of course you can vote “no” but do so admitting that you want to discriminate against a group of Australians. Don’t hide behind other reasons to justify your vote. Don’t say to those same-sex couples that your ‘no’ vote is not a reflection of your opinion of their relationship being less than a heterosexual couple because that is exactly what you are saying by wanting those couple to be excluded from the legal right to marry.

Our generation cannot rest because minority groups have achieved more rights, because we have 80 percent or 90 percent of rights is not enough. Equality means equal and we have to continue the fight because we owe it to those that fought harder than we will ever know to get us where we are today. We owe it to ourselves to say it’s not good enough to have gained some rights, to be “almost equal”. 

It is one of the greatest social challenges of our time to be empathic, to fight for the equality of all, even if it does not affect you personally. In the words of Macklemore in ‘Same Love’ “I might not be the same, but that's not important, no freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it”. Maybe that is why Macklemore’s performance of that song at the NRL Grand Final last weekend in Australia was met with such strong opposition from the ‘no’ side. It was claimed the performance was subjecting fans to a politicised Grand Final, ignoring the fact the ‘Same Love’ reached number one on the ARIA charts in 2012, was the year’s 14th biggest selling pop song in Australia, and one of Macklemore’s most popular songs so it would be on their playlist regardless of the current national survey. But maybe those in opposition of Macklemore’s performance were made more uncomfortable because here was a white, straight, well-off man just like them fighting for the equal rights of others.

This national survey provides a simple, straight forward question on whether the law regarding marriage in Australia should be equal for all people. Once again in the words of Macklemore “a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all but it's a damn good place to start”. To some of those individually not effected by the inability of same-sex couples to marry, it may seem at times to be a futile argument, that same-sex couples are just whinging. But this survey asked us to answer a simple question that that effects same-sex couples legal rights. It’s about their equality under the law and the acceptance of their relationships. No person should feel less than the next in Australia because of their sexual orientation. Non-discrimination and equality has, and will be, the greatest passion of my life. Marriage equality isn’t giving special rights, it’s giving equal rights. I want homosexual people to know there is nothing wrong with them, just at times there is just something wrong in the country in which we live. If ‘yes’ is the majority outcome of this survey, it will be one of my proudest moments to be Australian.

freedom includes the right to live how you wish

Last week Nike revealed the Pro Hijab, the first hijab designed for Muslim female athletes which will be released in 2018. A backlash against this has been reported with some claiming the product supports and normalises the oppression of women, and others saying they would now boycott Nike. This is just another example of concern for women’s rights served to cover an aversion to Islam.

The Islamic text, the Koran, calls for both men and women to 'cover and be modest'. Muslim women may choose to cover their hair and face to avoid some men from looking at them. It is not mandatory to wear the various forms of coverings (for example - Burka, Hijab, Niqab), but some women wear them due to their interpretation of the Koran and religious obligation and other women wear it for cultural reasons. This is no different to other religions where interpretations of religious scriptures cause members of that religion to choose a particular action. Regarding clothing, Christians dress more modest in religious buildings and during religious sacraments such as weddings, baptisms and the Holy Communion ceremony. In Judaism, women wear the tichel, which is a headscarf worn either during prayer and religious rituals or some choose to wear them every day.

In 2008, I arrived in Istanbul airport from Madrid in my short shorts and a jacket to some odd looks. It was my first time to you Europe at 23 and didn’t really think about where I was going and the fact that Turkey was a predominately Muslim country. It was the first time I saw women in Burkas and Niqabs, face and head veilings. I stared a little at those people as it was something different for me and they stared a little at me, because I was dressed a bit different to everyone else. In the past, I considered if the banning of the burka might be a good thing. Not because I ever had an issue with Islam but as a feminist I considered that the wearing of the burka and other head and face veilings was due to woman being forced to by men and by their culture. But if I don’t want men and/or a particular society to decide what a woman is to wear, then why should I be. The footage of the woman on a French beach in August last year being approached by armed French police and making her remove some of her clothing as part of a controversial ban on the burkini was confronting. In 2016, there were armed men asking a woman to remove clothing. The law had in 2016 defined what a woman was allowed to wear.  That exact premise should shock everyone. It should make us all stand with the women affected. But it doesn’t, and the only explanation is that the woman is Muslim.

Why are people in the West so concerned with how some Muslim women want to dress? We would be outraged if a law was enacted telling us how to dress, what to wear or not wear, but hey it’s ok for us to do the same to others. Don’t tell me you are concerned about these women’s rights when in Australia, the United States and Europe there has been many cases of women wearing face and head veilings being harassed and assaulted for what they were wearing. Don’t tell me you’re outraged at the treatment of women within Islam. Because you don’t care about women whose lives are affected by human rights violations in Muslims countries? In Australia a ban on Muslim immigration has been cited by many and a survey in 2016 showed almost half of Australians showed support for such a ban. In the US a ban on Muslims has also been stated by the President, other politicians and supported by many. Bans proposed in both countries applied to women too. Which means banning women that are could be in fear of being persecuted based on their gender. More than half of the world’s refugees are women. In origin countries, women and children are overwhelming the majority of refugees. Displaced and refugee women are more likely to face harassment, sexual violence, exploitation, abuse, humiliation and lack of access to education, health services, shelter, food and water. On top of all of this, a ban on Muslim women is one of the most outrageous and baseless propositions. As I have noted in previous posts, overall the chance of a being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion. When was the last time you heard of a Muslim woman committing a terror attack against in a western country? You don’t, so the chances of a Muslim woman committing a terror attack is between 1 and not going to happen.

When starting an opposition to the wearing of face and head coverings, you really need to ask if you know if they are not choosing to wear the face veils themselves. Women who actually wear face and head veilings have said it is through their own interpretation of the religion, about being modest away from certain men or for cultural reasons. Women around the world wear makeup, dress how they wish, dye their hair and many regularly get Botox. Whilst no one is forcing the majority of women to do any of those things, are you really freely choosing to do it or it is because we live in a society that demands looking good to “land a man”, be popular or get a certain job? It wouldn’t be permitted to suggest those women are not free to choose how they look and dress, or the law was changed to limit those freedoms, because that is an outrageous notion.

Banning women from covering their hair and face does not solve the problem of oppression. It actually further persecutes women and limits their freedom to practice what they believe and dress how they wish. It may also lead to isolation of those women affected because they may not be able to go out and leave their homes. So every person that wants to backlash against Nike or support the ban of the burka that’s your prerogative. But just know, it’s not because you care about Muslim women and their freedom. It’s because of your fear of Islam and a natural reaction to be scared of what is different. That is on you to change. Inform yourself, get educated and learn to demonstrate empathy. Because if you really think women wearing face and head veils should not be told what to wear by anyone else, then you shouldn’t be doing that either. If a women should be free to show her body, then she should also be free to cover it.

refugees and immigrants 101

On Q and A on Monday night, George Brandis, Australia’s Attorney-General was asked “do you believe that asylum seekers that come to this country commit any offence?” He responded “Yes”, he was then asked what offence they commit, to which Mr Brandis said “against the migration laws”, and when asked which laws he responded “people are entitled to seek asylum in an orderly manner”.  So the senior legal officer of Australia doesn’t understand the law in Australia and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugee 1967 (Refugee Convention and Protocol) that Australia is a party to. The words “orderly manner” are not written in any of these. Australia has international obligations under various treaties[1] to protect the rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, irrespective of how they arrive, where they arrive and whether or not they arrive with a visa. The Refugee Convention recognises refugees have the lawful right to enter a country to seek asylum, regardless of actions that would ordinarily be considered as illegal, such as how they arrive or if they hold valid travel and identity documents.

Monday night on CNN, Trump supporter and political commentator Kayleigh McEnany in defending the travel ban on seven majority Muslim countries recently imposed in the United States (US) said that one life lost to a refugee or immigrant was too many and that would validate a ban on refugees and immigrants from those countries. If a person from Texas went to California and murdered someone, they wouldn’t stop letting people from Texa into California. If an Australian went to the United States and committed murder, the US would not ban all immigrants from Australia. If a Christian refugee killed someone, there would be no call to ban immigrants and refugees from their country of origin or of their religion. So the argument that one person committing a violent crime – terrorism, rape, murder – from one of these countries involved in the travel ban that Kayleigh put forward, is a blatant example of discrimination against them for their country and religion. Discrimination is treating, or proposing to treat, someone unfavourably because of a personal characteristic protected by the law. Article 3 of the Refugee Convention stipulates that Contracting States shall apply the provisions of the Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.

Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention and Protocol and the US is a party to the Protocol, which means they agree to apply Articles 2 to 34 of the Convention to refugees defined in Article 1. If the political “right” in Australia and the US wants to limit refugees then at least have a decent and factual argument. So here is a free lesson for you.

Under Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. The Refugee Convention, beyond Article 3, which disavows discrimination based on race, religion or country of origin, says in Article 4, Contracting States accord to refugees within their territories freedom to practise their religion. Contracting States under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention shall not impose penalties on refugees seeking asylum for illegal entry, and states that it is legal to enter a country for the purpose of seeking asylum. Under Article 32, Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in the country unless it is for reasons of national security or public order and with due process under the law.

In the US, the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner on the most common tourist visa is 1 in 3.6 million per year, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1011 times that at 1 in 3.64 billion, whilst the chance of being murdered by an illegal immigrant is 1 in 10.9 billion, which 3027 times as much as a foreign tourist on a visa.

Specifically for Mr Brandis, under Australian law and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), an asylum seeker is an ‘unlawful non-citizen’ where they enter Australia without a valid visa (section 228B). However it is not a criminal offence to arrive in Australia without a visa. Also to the Attorney General, beyond “orderly manner” have not having a legal basis, if you mean asylum seekers should arrive by plane and with a valid visa, here’s some information from the real world. It’s not always safe or possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents, travel through authorised channels and apply for the appropriate visa due to the fact they are refugees. By definition, refugees are persons fleeing persecution and their safety and lives are at risk. In many cases they are being persecuted by the governments from which you want them to get these documents. Refugees may also be fleeing their homes and country with minimal notice and unable to access what is required. Studies have also found that between 85% and 90% of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat have been found to be genuine refugees compared to around 40% of asylum seekers who arrived by plane with travel documents and a valid visa.

For every good reason there is to lie – political benefit, forwarding an agenda - there is a better reason to tell the truth – people’s lives, security and peace.

[1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

the “Muslim” ban aka Trump’s intolerance agenda

The “Muslim” ban, is President Trump’s executive order which suspends for 120 days the admission of all refugees, indefinitely bans Syrian refugees, and bars for 90 days the admission of all immigrants and visa-holders from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan from entering the United States (US). The chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack within the United States (US) committed by a foreigner over a 41-year period studied was found to be 1 in 3.6 million per year. The chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. The chance of being murdered by a tourist, under the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year. The number of people killed by terrorists from the seven “banned” countries is 0.

Why are they banned? The reason - that ISIS tells us that they will infiltrate the refugees - but they won’t. It’s harder to get into the US as a refugee than other way and takes at least 18 months. But it works for groups like ISIS if they say this. Firstly, it leads to refugees in these countries being unable to get out. Recruits for members of terror groups are most likely unmarried young men, not employed prior to joining them. In some cases, terrorism is the only choice in failed or failing states to obtain an income or stay alive. The main reasons studies have found for joining terror groups and committing terrorist acts are a result of circumstances and/or pre-existing social bonds. Studies have found that terrorists seek to develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists, that terrorism appeals to those that are lonely and socially alienated. These reasons were found to be greater indicator than jihad against Western nations. So refugees leaving means less of a pool of potential new members. It is also a gift to ISIS that the US would be isolating Muslims, and in particular Muslims and people in countries that they have helped destroy.

Refugee from the countries “banned” are overwhelming the victims of terror, not terrorists. And not just from within those countries themselves. Along with civil war, the US has completed drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya and Iraq. Yemen has been destabilising since 2001, with US action in Yemen causing destruction, thousands murdered and over 100 injured including civilians and children. In Somalia, it has been reported a US invasion resulted in 20,000 killed and over 2 million homeless. Other US military action in Somalia has led to over 500 killed including civilians and children. The US and allies’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a strategic catastrophe and led to the rise of terror groups including the ISIS. In Syria, civil war developed, and groups fighting the government were backed by the US and allies, which led to ISIS in Syria and the destruction of most of the country. The US and Coalition has completed airstrikes of dropping over 65,000 bombs and missiles in Syria, Iraq and Libya which have killed at least 2,300 civilians.

While the US and its citizens might want to put “America first”, two things: one, stop getting involved in the destruction of other countries and then complaining when the innocent people that have been effected apply for refuge; and two, realise that placing a ban on all the people from majority Muslim countries will only make America more unsafe. You can’t make a country safer by creating more enemies. I comprehend terrorism better than many people, I have studied it and I am willing to listen to experts and try and understand it, not just listen to sensationalised scare tactics. I am sick of some media and politicians exposing opinions and making changes to policy and law that make me more unsafe because it suits their agenda to do so. Policy and law should be based on facts and justice and aim to make a society better for those a part of it.

It is not our differences that separate us, it is our inability to recognise that those differences are what makes societies and the world more interesting, exciting and beautiful. To be intolerant to people that are different to you only creates division and animosity. Gandhi said “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit”. Those that are for the ban don’t seem to know anything about Muslims, the countries involved or terrorism. To reject people from certain countries and of a faith you don’t understand is at the highest form of ignorance.

The difference we should be focused on is the difference we can each make in the world.

an open letter to the PM*, love will win

Dear Prime Minister,

On the weekend I had the pleasure of being present at the most beautiful wedding I had ever been to and watch another step in an incredible love story. I enjoy weddings of the people I really care about, it means something to them even if I have no urge or need for marriage myself. This wedding was different, this wedding brought a tear to my eye and a surge in my heart. The vows that were spoken meant something more than I had ever heard before, the look they gave each other made me believe like never before, their love had inspired me. Maybe they are just two incredible people with an extraordinary love. Or maybe it meant more, because here were two women declaring their love for each other in front of their friends and family that offered them unconditional love and support, and in that very moment I could finally imagine a world where love won.

Marriage is a declaration of love and also a legal entity. In 2004, the government of the time changed the law to ban gay couples from marrying or adopting children from overseas. Under Prime Minister John Howard, the government rushed to amend the Marriage Act enabling the changes into parliament. The Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the voluntarily entered into union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, to exclude same-sex couples from marrying. The law until that time did not define marriage. Why was this done? In John Howard’s words “we’ve decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation''. Because he did not want the law “over time [to] be subject to redefinition or change by courts”. In other words, we better change it now, before same-sex couples start wanting in on this marriage thing and the court would affirm that they were entitled to the same rights.

As I sat there on the weekend, looking at two people so in love, I felt a sadness that this couldn’t be legal. That as a country, we were deeming this love to not be equal. That the government would not amend the Marriage Act that was only changed 12 years ago to specifically exclude people. The Liberal Party put forward a plebiscite so that the people of Australia would vote on marriage equality (although this would not be binding on the government anyway). It was claimed a plebiscite is a display of democracy and that the people rather than the parliament should decide the issue of marriage equality. In 2004, John Howard said when he changed the legislation, “it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country'', but now the government believes we must first have a nationwide debate on the issue and ask each citizen to give their opinion? So in essence, it is the parliament’s job when it is to exclude, divide and discriminate, but not the parliament’s role to unite, include and promote equality.

It has been insisted that the plebiscite is the “only way” to resolve the issue but it’s not. The Marriage Act when written in 1961 never stated exactly who is qualified to enter into the union of marriage. In 2004, the parliament amended the legislation as Mr Howard said it was a “necessary assertion by the parliament of the country above all others to define what is regarded in our community what is a marriage''. National polling on Australian support for same sex marriage (2009-2012) shows 64 per cent in favour, yet somehow now it’s not for the parliament to represent the community now on this issue? Not even that I agree on that premise – this is discrimination and should end no matter what – but we can’t even get consistency on what the role of the government is. The government wouldn’t ban any other group based on race, colour, religion or nationality from marrying, so why do you continue to do it based on sexual orientation.

What is the reason for the Liberal Party not allowing a conscience vote? The only motivation I have heard put forward is that there are some in the party that are using their religion and conservative beliefs as a legitimate reason to be against marriage equality. But religion has no part in this discussion, because we are meant to be a secular state that treats all citizens equally. The same people in the government that are using religion and conservatism to argue against same-sex marriage being legal in Australia are the same people that are warning us against the risk of Sharia law. Sharia law is based on Islamic religion and morals, so I am failing to see the difference if we are basing Australian laws on Christian religion and morals. If there is any valid reason stopping the changes to the Marriage Act and allowing marriage equality besides some members of the government and their hard-line religious views, could you please let me know?

After the voting down of the plebiscite, you said the government has “no plans to take any other measures on this issue". While others may have given up on the issue, because they have fought long and hard to no avail, there are some that will never give up because to allow the government to discriminate in not allowing same-sex marriage is saying we don’t care about their equal rights. It is not ok to sit by and wait because some day it will finally happen, because rights and justice delayed are rights and justice denied.

So you can continue to be the Prime Minister that promised so much, that supported the LGBTQI community and marriage equality and stopped when you had the power for it to truly matter. It was pretty easy to stand up for marriage equality when it was convenient to do so, but it’s where you stand at times of challenge that means the most. I am sure you want a nation where all citizens feel equal, where there is an inclusive society where people feel respected for who they are. So again you have the chance to do right thing and allow parliament to amend the Marriage Act to provide equality before the law. You can choose to be on the right side of history, because love won on the weekend and love will continue to win.

Regards

Simone Cappelluti

*I will also be sending this letter to the Prime Minister.

we must only get tired of giving in

Today I woke up in a state of sadness, Donald Trump is the US President. For all the hope I constantly have for a world of love, peace, equality and compassion was being challenged, and there was a part of me that seriously thought of giving up. But in times like these, that is one option, the other is to work harder than ever before. It is a wakeup call to never underestimate the power of sexism, racism and other bigotry in the world and the fact that those with privilege feel threatened when it is shared. They don’t understand allowing others the same rights doesn’t take away from theirs. The privileged section of society feels an injustice when its sees its power slipping away. They are scared and acting out that their power might be challenged. Trump did and said whatever he could to “win” the presidency, and in that gave voice to many discriminations that groups have worked centuries to overcome.

“Make America Great Again” the slogan that propelled the Trump movement. What does make America great again mean? Many Trump supporters that were asked this said the 1950s, a time where abortion was illegal, marital rape was legal, and interracial and gay marriage were banned. Or some even said when the country was founded, where slavery existed and only white males had the right to vote, among many other ills. Meaning that slogan is wanting to go back to a time where the white male heterosexual Christians dominated even more than they do now. During this election period, white supremacists rose, the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) endorsed Trump, praising that his ‘Make America Great Again’ call was important to prevent white genocide. The KKK claimed to help Trump to victory. The fact that organisation still exist in 2016 is sad enough but to think their voice and aims may grow now is terrifying.

I saw a comment today online from a Trump supporter saying all those that called Trump and his supporters sexist and racist pushed him to vote for Trump and that it was all those people’s faults he won. Trump is sexist and racist, there are too many examples of this to even note. So speaking the truth, and calling someone out for their inappropriate behaviour was seen as a challenge to these people. Could there be a more perfect example of this privileged group feeling threatened by equality.

Trump won the ‘white vote’, with the only group of whites not supporting Trump being college-educated white women. There are reports even 80 per cent of white evangelists voted for Trump, so it goes to show that with all his flaws by religious standards, conservatives were happy to have still have him in power to protect them from minority power growing. Over history, violence between groups was caused by a change in the legal and political status of minority groups. The election of Barack Obama could have contributed to the surge in what has been called a ‘whitelash’, a movement from the white population to take back the power that felt they were losing. The resentment the whites have felt in ‘losing the country’ pushed them to cling to their power and prevent other groups from having it.

It’s no coincidence that the far right, anti-immigration political leaders around the world were the first to congratulate Trump. Already, Israeli government ministers have claimed that Trump’s presidency will lead to the end of international will for a Palestinian state and for Israel to immediately retract the notion. Russia and terrorist groups have welcomed his election, as it makes it all easier for them.

I am worried for many people around the world whose lives will be significantly affected by a Donald Trump presidency and saddened that we will be moving backwards from equality and peace. I have to hope that Trump only said the derogatory and discriminatory comments to get the votes and win and he doesn’t really mean it. I am then still left with the reality that his supporters actually believe them. History has shown the world that oppression is another name for irresponsible power. But as Martin Luther King said “the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people”. If I let this defeat me, if I stay silent where there is injustice, I will have sided with the oppressor. So even though it looks grim, and fear and sadness have set in, I have to believe there is still a better future from this. We have been through far worse in history but it’s the grief that we are going backwards that makes this particular moment hurt. It is when a generation is pushed that they can achieve greatness and I hope this spurs us all to leave hatred behind and that love and compassionate will rise above fear. To make peace with your enemy, you have to work with them and to do that you have to keep the faith and continue fighting. Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter (MLK). So today while others have chosen hate, I choose hope - there is no other way.

“Never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it” Hillary Clinton, 9 November, 2016

the power of being privileged

There is no country in the world in which women have reached equality, which is an utterly depressing thought in 2016. But over the last two weeks in the United States (US) and Australia, we aren’t just talking about unequal pay or whether we are judged more unfairly on our appearance. YET AGAIN, we are having to validate that we get to choose who touches our bodies, and we have the right to be free from an epidemic of violence. Women continue to have to debate why they as human beings deserve basic fundamental rights.

Last week there was footage released of US Presidential candidate Donald Trump saying he could do whatever he wanted to women because he was rich and a star, including actions that amount to sexual assault. The overwhelming response from men and some women was that those comments were not ok, because they were a mother, had daughters, were or had a wife. This week in Australia on show Q&A (ABC television), there was a question regarding the Respectful Relationships program being rolled out in Australian schools. The questioner wanted to know how we could tackle the issue of domestic violence without alienating and “branding half the population as abusers”. Richard De Natale, the leader of the Greens party, said in response “privilege is usually invisible to those that have it” and noted the privilege of white middle aged men. The response from another panellist (a white middle aged male) to that comment was that he “had a daughter”.

I am sick of the worth of women and girls being linked to their role in the world as a daughter, a mother, a wife. Really doesn’t need to be stated that a woman is someone’s daughter and it does not matter whether a woman is a mother or a wife. If we haven’t come past a women’s worth being attached to those roles then no wonder we still have an issue with domestic violence and equality. As the main cause of violence again women is from male attitudes and behaviours of how a woman is to act and participate in society.

Do we need to say that one man isn’t responsible for all domestic violence? No. That is common sense, but society as a whole is responsible for issues that a prevalent in the entire community. So are those that have perpetuated a patriarchal system which has led to the main causes of violence against women. Have women done this alone? No. Have women even been the main source of these issues? No. Men have to take some responsibility for this, like any group that has significantly contributed to an issue. This is a gendered issue, and if we don’t acknowledge that it will never get better. If we can’t state that within the issue of violence against women, it is overwhelmingly men that are the perpetrators then there is no chance of reducing the numbers around the world of 1 in 3 women being the victims of male violence and 1 in 5 women being the victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. We will continue to see numbers of at least one woman per week being murdered by a partner or ex-partner in Australia.

Women deserve to be equal by virtue of their status as a human being. So if you as man are uncomfortable with the mention of men being the main cause of violence against women then do something to change that, don’t whinge about being offended. Because what is really offensive is that as a women aged under 44 I need to fear men, more than I fear cancer. It is offensive that men still think they can touch and do whatever they want to a woman. As Richard De Natale stated privilege is invisible to those that have it. So men, (and others) let tell you a little more about privilege so you can be less offended by the benefits you have without ever having to do anything personally for them.

Privilege is a set of unearned benefits given to people who fit into a specific social group. Aspects of a person’s identify including race, gender, sexual orientation, language, ability and religion are some of the areas in which privilege is granted. In western society, there is a recognised privilege for white, middle to upper class, heterosexual and full abled men. Those that fit into that category have more rights, power and freedom in societies. They overall control the law, economy, media, culture and politics. Privilege is the opposite of oppression. It is linked to power systems and affects people in each category together, they don’t negate each other. So as a women I don’t have male privilege but I have it in other aspects. Privilege in my life means that in the same circumstances, for someone without that type of privilege life would be harder. Privilege is the way that everyone should be treated, as in, all people should be free from oppression. This would mean groups of people would not be the victims of discrimination, that we would all be equal. But we cannot achieve equality if we don’t acknowledge that our current systems have institutionalised power for a group that creates greater opportunity and makes life easier for those people. Those that are the beneficiaries of privilege need to acknowledge that and the advantages that are afforded to them. Privilege is something to be aware of and there is a responsibility of the privileged groups to work to end the oppression of other groups.

To the men that are sick of being told off for their unwanted advances and derogatory language, imagine how sick women are of being the victims of it. To the men that tired of being associated with male violence by being simply being a man, imagine how tired women are of experiencing it for simply being a woman. To the young man that asked the question on Q&A about the Respectful Relationships program, congratulations on enjoying the benefits of privilege which makes you think that not mentioning facts of an issue as to not offend you is more important than working to save another person’s life.

when did the bible become law, must have missed that class

What a time to be alive in Australia for the LGBTQI community. It’s been almost five years since the Labour Party amended their platform to allow a conscience vote on the issue. In that time the debate has gone on, we have continued to tell people in same-sex couples we respect their relationships and them as human beings but we don’t want to give them the right to marriage. I am sure that everyone is over this whole debate, especially those in the LGBTQI community that would rather the politicians and country’s time was better used to solve difficult problems. This isn’t one of them. This is about discrimination. It’s about equality before the law. It’s not about a group of conservatives who have decided some people in the community should be excluded from the right to marry because it makes them uncomfortable. Nelson Mandela once said “to deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”. Every day we in Australia decide to debate same-sex marriage instead of allowing it we continue to permit a society where we place one group above another.

In the debate about same-sex marriage, conservatives and religious groups keep saying we must value all opinions equally, that all opinions are important and none are right and wrong. Don’t tell me there is no right and wrong opinions on this issue. There is right and wrong - equality is right, discrimination is wrong.  Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, because of a personal characteristic protected by the law. By not allowing a group of people to marry based on the fact they want to marry the same-sex is discrimination. So whomever tries to justify their opposition to marriage equality, are only trying to justify their discrimination and prejudice.

Equality before the law is a crucial element of democracy. Australia likes to espouse it’s a young, open, modern democracy, yet we are lagging behind the world regarding marriage equality. Canada have allowed same-sex marriage since 2005, and it’s now also legal in other Commonwealth counties - England, Wales, Scotland, South Africa, and New Zealand. The “no” to marriage equality side of the argument in Australia has been characterised as being Christian churches, and other religious conservatives. The United States, a country with a Christian religiosity of over 70 per cent, has marriage equality under the law. Ireland, a highly religious country where homosexuality was illegal until 1993 and divorce until 1996, and where abortion is still banned in most circumstances, voted for same sex marriage in 2015. This year Colombia became the fourth country in Catholic-majority South America to legalise same-sex marriage, following Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

Those opposing gay marriage based on religion may think they are giving a worthy opinion when they are just rearranging their prejudices. The interpretation of texts written thousands of years ago does not trump another person’s human rights. Even if you choose to be religious, it doesn’t mean you are anti same-sex marriage. I know Christians, Muslims and Hindus that support marriage equality because they support human equality. Beyond that, you aren’t born a religion, but you are born gay. It’s called marriage equality because it means giving all consenting adults the right to marriage. What makes Christians think they own ‘marriage’? It’s a legal concept in Australia. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, you don’t agree with equality under the law.

The Australian government won’t legislate to eliminate discrimination to protect human rights, instead they are adamant this is the only social issue that we must “all” vote on. Australia has held three national votes that qualify as plebiscites. There were votes on Conscription in 1916 and 1917, and a vote on a National Song in 1977. That means we didn’t have a plebiscite when Prime Minister John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 to include marriage as the voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why do we need one now? To keep the religious groups and conservatives happy? The only people this is an important issue for the LGBTQI community. They are the only ones whose fundamental rights and freedoms the current discrimination under the law effects. In Administrative Law there is the principle of “Standing”. Standing means that the person or group must have a special interest in the subject matter of the litigation, to the extent that their interests are adversely affected by the decision or conduct being challenged more than other citizens. So you can’t oppose a fence on someone’s property when you live one hour away just because you don’t want the fence to be there.

The direct cost of the plebiscite is estimated at $158 million. Additionally the government has allocated $15 million in public funding for the “yes” and “no” campaigns. It is estimated that there will also be further monetary and social costs to the health and wellbeing of LGBTQI community. Why, so we can debate the worth of a group of people in this country and whether they deserve equality? So we can further isolate a group that is far more likely to experience depression and anxiety and have higher levels of suicide? This issue doesn’t affect me individually, like it doesn’t affect Christian fundamentalists who hijack the debate because they think god is anti-gay and somehow allowing gay marriage will pull apart the fabric of Australian society. It does however directly affect many of my best friends, who will continue to encounter those they treat them as lesser because they love someone of the same sex. Giving another person equal rights does not infringe or take away rights from others, it just makes it illegal to enforce prejudice and discrimination.

you’re not scared, you’re just uneducated

This week media personality Sonia Kruger called for a ban on Muslim migrants to Australia because she was “scared” and she wants “to feel safe, as all of our citizens do when they go out to celebrate Australia Day” and as mother worries for the safety of her child. Sonia faced a barrage of criticism in the wake of her comments – and she should have, if she wants to spout uneducated comments that cause other uneducated and misinformed people in Australia to think unfavourably towards Muslim people.

Some people are claiming she is racist, and then others that Muslim is not a race. Well yeah it’s a religion, but people are saying she is racist because there is the assumption among a range of people that all Muslim’s are terrorist (hence the ban). Sonia is racist if her ban on Muslims would mean a ban on all Middle Eastern immigrants. So for all of you that don’t know – all Muslims aren’t Middle Eastern and all Middle Eastern people are not Muslim. When Sonia says she doesn’t want to let “Muslims” in, does she mean Middle Eastern people or Muslims? Because the Muslim minority in Myanmar have been subject to persecution – which would mean they are refugees? And many people in the Middle East are persecuted for their religion or for other reasons, again which makes them legitimate refugees. So Sonia I am not sure you are clear in what you are asking to ban. Even if it is Muslims, and not all Middle Eastern people, you might not be a racist but you are bigot.

You say you are scared. What do you really have to be scared of Sonia? The closest Australia has got to a terrorist attack was the shooting of police employee Curtis Cheng. If you want to talk about being scared, go to Iraq and Syria. Have your home either destroyed by ISIS or a United States drone. Be fleeing rape and death, holding your children. Have no idea when you or your children will have shelter, food or safety again. You have no idea what fear is. So don’t think that “being scared” is a legitimate excuse to justify being an uneducated bigot.

Should we not let any Christian immigrants in because some of them are terrorists, and should not let homosexuals in because they some of them have been paedophiles? Well no because that is ridiculous.  We have real issues that should cause real fear in Australia, more than one woman per week in Australia is killed by male violence. Should we stop male immigration?

I have noted the factors that lead to terrorism on more than one occasion on my blog, but seeing people have very little interest in knowing what those are, I will state them again. There is no international definition of terrorism but it has been defined as the planned use or unlawful violence or threat intended to cause fear or intimidate governments or society to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective. The reasons for joining terror groups and committing terrorist acts are a result of circumstances and/or pre-existing social bonds. Studies have found that terrorists seek to develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists, that terrorism appeals to those that are lonely and socially alienated with the majority of terrorist organisations composed of unmarried young men, not employed prior to joining them. Studies have found a major factor for joining a terror group was having a friend or relative in it and that was a greater indicator than jihad. In other cases, terrorism is the only choice in failed or failing states to obtain an income or stay alive.

As France has seen a number of terror attacks in recent years, the number of Muslim immigrants has been used by some to ‘prove’ that solely Muslim immigration is to blame. France has a long history of colonisation and in being part of military actions in other countries. In France, Muslims are socially ostracised and systemically discriminated and some studies have estimated that Muslims are twice as likely to live below the poverty line and are three times as likely to be unemployed. These are more likely to be factors in radicalisation than purely due to religion.

By banning Muslim immigration to Australia, it says as a country we are anti-Muslim. That would alienate the Muslims currently living within Australia and make it more likely for them to be radicalised. It would be a gift to groups like ISIS that the West hates Islam. This would make Australia more “unsafe”.

Obviously anyone can give their opinion, but we all don’t need to. That is what people in Australia are missing. If we want to live in a wonderful, multicultural society, those that are spouting uneducated, misinformed comments that lead to hate against a particular group need to shut the fuck up. Because anyone can have an opinion, but when it comes to people being discriminated against, their rights are more important. Prejudice comes from forming opinions without having regard to facts.  

Whilst Sonia sits in Australia with all the safety this country offers, it’s pretty easy to say she wants to ban a group of people immigrating because she is scared of that group because she is completely misinformed of an issue. Love and compassion are necessary and without them humanity cannot survive. Without love and compassion, by replacing that with hate and fear, we continue to allow terrorism to flourish and for men, women and children to be murdered. If Sonia wants to know what being scared is, she should talk to those people she is willing to ban from this country. Those people that have lost family members and their homes, from terrorists and Western drones. That are currently living in in camps without shelter, food and safety with real and immediate fear for themselves and their children every day.

let’s get hysterical

On Monday night on show Q&A (ABC), a question was asked by Tarang Chawla, a campaigner against violence against women. Panellist Steve Price called another panellist Van Badham “hysterical” when discussing the issue of casual sexiest comments and their connection to violence against woman. If you haven’t watched the show, let me just let you know, Van Badham wasn’t “hysterical”, but I wouldn’t have minded if she was. I would actually LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY TO GET HYSTERICAL. I would love if violence against women was an issue that we stopped just giving sympathy to but didn’t actually work hard to eliminate. For years we have heard that a woman dies in Australia every week from male violence at the hands of a partner or former partner. We hear the incredible numbers that one in three women and girls will be the subject of male violence and one in five will be the victim of sexual violence. And as long as violence against women continues, we cannot claim to have equality.

This whole story started with less than appropriate comments from broadcaster Eddie McGuire about football writer Caroline Wilson. Caroline Wilson never made a big deal about it, but was entitled to say whether the comments about “holding her under water” were offensive or not. Actually we need people to stop laughing at every stupid and insensitive joke made. I am not asking for Royal Commission, but we don’t have to keep laughing and making jokes that go too far at other people’s expense, and expect them to not comment.

On Monday night, Steve Price made the whole thing about him, claiming Van Badham was trying to suggest that he would be involved in a similar joke. She didn’t say he was part of the joke she was saying that he is part of the industry (radio) and one of the conservative broadcasters that says whatever they feel and happy to apologise later if it happens to cause offence. And the next day Price was making the whole thing STILL about him, saying he felt ambushed by the question. Why was he ambushed? Because although he was told that Eddie McGuire’s comments would be brought up in a question, no one told him it would be coming from a family violence campaigner whose sister was murdered by her partner. I am (not) sorry Steve but for a start questions on Q&A are quite often from people with personal experience or interest in the issue, hence why they are asking the question. And the circumstances of the person asking the question do not matter, and you were not ambushed BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU PERSONALLY. Quite clearly everyone else on the panel didn’t feel ambushed, but they were in the same position as you.

Apparently Steve is standing by calling fellow panellist Van Badham “hysterical” because he won’t be “verballed” by an “aggressive woman” over an important issue. You’re on a show that asks questions of the panel and people have different opinions. Van Badham was speaking passionately about one of the biggest social issues in Australia today and if anything, was clearly frustrated at Steve Price’s 1) lack of compassion to the questioner and the topic and 2) need to make it all about himself.

Tuesday night on The Project (Channel 10), co-host Waleed Aly asked Price about his use of the word “hysterical” to describe Badham, and noted “For 4000 years, women were described as hysterical as a way of trying to say that they were irrational and incapable of being reasonable because they had ovaries. The Latin root of it is womb”. Steve had no idea about the background to the word hysteria, so it’s still not a problem. AGAIN YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT STEVE! People are outraged at your behaviour and your use of that word because a woman next to you was making a valid point (something you had failed to do) and actually answered the question and was giving the issue the respect it deserved. She is allowed to be passionate, she is allowed to be frustrated when you fob the issue off, when you don’t see the bigger picture and instead defend your “friends” and insinuate we should all get over it because they have apologised.

Steve Price doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get the issues that underlie violence against women. And maybe it’s not THAT important to him, or Eddie McGuire, to look at their behaviour like we all should to start taking the steps to change male violence against women in Australia. I would love to say Steve Price’s opinion doesn’t matter and those comments of Eddie McGuire don’t matter. But do you know why they do? Because the main cause of violence against women is attitudes and behaviours. We have an embedded issue in Australia which breeds attitude and behaviours in men where women are seen as unequal and these can, and do, lead to violence. IT’S IMPORTANT! As a woman aged between 15 and 44, I am more at risk of male violence than from cancer or a car accident.

Violence against women has not been given the priority at all levels that is required to enable significant change. And now we can’t even speak passionately about it? Steve Price gets, what he calls “hysterical”, on his radio show or The Project on a weekly basis over much less important issues. He even got ‘worked up’ about everyone making a big deal about the “drowning” comments that started this conversation. So in the words of Tarang Chawla “Steve, you can get upset because your mates’ jokes weren’t all that funny, or you can be upset because women are being murdered”.

you can turn a blind eye or turn a life around

On June 20 each year is World Refugee Day. The week that day falls on in Australia is held as Refugee Week. I saw very little coverage of this in the traditional and social media. This year, more than ever before the issue of refugees and displaced persons must be highlighted as the word faces its worst refugee crisis. But the issue in Australia, and in many parts of the world, is that refugees and displaced persons are seen as a statistic, not as each individual person suffering. That this is someone else’s problem or it’s just unfortunate for them. The world is not just dangerous because of those that do evil, but because of those that look on and do nothing to protest it or stop it.

There are currently 65.3 million displaced persons in the world. That is more than after World War 2 and the equivalent to the population of France. That number means that 1 in 112 people in the world has been forced to leave their homes. Thirty-nine per cent of the world’s refugees are hosted in the Middle East and twenty-nine per cent in Africa. Since 2011, the number of people forced from their homes has doubled. If the total number of all the people that have been displaced were one country it would be the 21st largest country in the world.  More than half of all refugees since 2011 came from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. Afghans make up the second largest refugee population. There are 6 million Syrians displaced in Syria and 5 million more Syrians are refugees in other countries.

Over 40 million people are internally displaced in countries in conflict and another 21.3 million are refugees in other countries. In the last year, Turkey was the top hosting country taking in 2.5 million people, Pakistan has taken in 1.6 million and Lebanon hosted at least 1.1 million more refugees. The population of Lebanon is 4.5 million, with 4.1 million Lebanese nationals, 1.1 million Syrian refugees and close to half a million Palestinian refugees; making nearly one quarter of the population in Lebanon refugees. In the Middle East, there are 58 Palestinian refugee camps. In some there is no access to water, food or electricity. For Palestinian refugees the situation is even worse as Palestinians have been refugees for decades and are stateless leaving them with very limited rights. They have no international protection and they cannot move across borders and have limited to no rights in the countries they are stuck in.

While it may be communicated to Western society on a daily basis that refugees are in fact illegal immigrants trying to sneak in and take our jobs and commit crimes, that could not be further from the truth. Refugees have had to flee or been forced from their homes and countries either to escape war or persecution. Displaced persons, are those whom have fled or been forced from their homes and towns to escape war or persecution. While the number of over 65 million refugees and displaced persons in the world may just be statistic for you that is 65 million people without the rights you have, without safety. Not one person should have to live like that.

So while you may sit in safety and with all the luxuries life can offer and look down on these people, remember they have more strength and courage then you will ever have to know in your life.  They aren’t terrorists, actually many have been the victims of terrorism. No one flees their homes, their families, crosses borders and hops in dangerous boats unless that option is safer. The world has lost all empathy. We in the West tend to think that all these people are nothing to do with us. Well, beyond it being part of our own humanity to care for other people, the West has contributed to the mass of displaced persons and refugees. The decisions of the governments we elected and supported assisted in creating this issue and inflicting these circumstances on millions of people. Since World War 2, 90 per cent of the casualties of warfare are civilians, and a third of those children.

After the attacks of September 11 2001 in New York, the United States (US) and allies invaded Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda.  The invasion and bombing of Afghanistan caused over 1 million civilian deaths and destroyed much of the country. As al-Qaeda and the Taliban initially retreated to Pakistan, the US commenced a drone program which killed almost 1000 civilians and destroyed many parts of the country including schools and hospitals. The war in Afghanistan went on for over a decade, devastating the country and allowing the Taliban back in causing millions to flee. Afghanistan and Pakistan have been damaged in a war they did not start and those millions fleeing Afghanistan are now stuck in Pakistan or countries throughout Asia.

The US, Western Europe and allies’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a strategic catastrophe and led to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Saddam Hussein secular Ba’athist regime actually prevented  al-Qaeda from operating in Iraq. The Iraq War overthrew Saddam and destabilised the country, which made Iraq a perfect ground for recruiting for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda in Iraq started in April 2004. The US and others didn’t do much to stop it and the new Iraqi government, the US supported, alienated Sunni Muslims and attacks on Sunni’s were made with US weapons. By the time they wanted to get rid of that government, there was enough damage done for an ISIL-led Sunni insurgency.

In Syria, in 2011 the ruling Assad regime violently suppressed peaceful pro-democracy protests and an armed uprising against the Syrian government began. As civil war developed, extremist groups joined the fight against the secular regime and were backed by a large amounts of arms and funding from America’s regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. These countries funded extremist groups including Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria). The US agreed that the Assad regime had to go, as it was an ally of Iran. ISIL was continuing to take over parts of Iraq, and the US did nothing to stop the civil war in Syria, leading to destabilisation, creating safe havens for extremists that otherwise would not have existed and for ISIL to thrive.

ISIL fighters have attacked villages across Iraq and Syria. They have destroyed infrastructure, killed thousands including men often in front of their families, and taken young girls to be raped and forced into sexual slavery, raped hundreds of times and sold on. You cannot ruin countries and expect there to be no ramifications. A large amount of refugees in the last decade have come from Afghanistan and Syria. Their lives and countries have been destroyed and they are at the mercy of terrorists, yet we leave them in those countries to die or if they seek refuge on our shores lock them up. In the 1970s, the Australian government under Malcolm Fraser resettled 70,000 Vietnamese refugees. At the time he said it was the right thing to do as Australia had assisted in causing the problem through their involvement in the Vietnam War. Over 40 years on and we have less compassion and human decency. As the Syrian crisis deepened, Australia announced it would take in 12,000 Syrian refugees, but that wouldn’t be extra, it would be included in the yearly refugee quota. On the same day as that announcement, the Australian government committed to air strikes on Syria.

As at December 2015, the Australian government was holding 1,852 people in immigration detention facilities and 585 people in community detention in Australia. In order to stop deaths at sea by those asylum seekers travelling by boat, a system of third country processing was enacted. At December 2015, 543 asylum seekers (including 70 children) were in detention in Nauru and 926 adult asylum seekers in detention on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. While we might like to say the system is working as it has stopped deaths at sea we forget these are people, locked up for no crime. Stopping deaths at sea doesn’t entitle the government and Australia as a nation to breach international law and our moral obligations.

The conditions in which asylum seekers are held in indefinite detention has been likened to Guantanamo Bay and last year the United Nations found that the conditions of offshore detention breached the United Nations anti-torture conventions. Australia is the only country in the world to hold children in indefinite detention. And while you still might not have a heart and care about the lives of these people, while causing this inexcusable human suffering the government is also wasting millions. It costs $500,000 a year to keep a person in offshore detention, it could cost a fraction of that to resettle those people in Australia. On top of that, the deal the Australian government did with Cambodia to take asylum seekers, has already cost $55 million and only five people have elected to go.

If nothing you have read so far changes your opinion on displaced persons and refugees, I fear for the society we live in. Evil will continue to win when we do nothing. Love and compassion for others is necessary, without them humanity cannot survive. Every night you go to bed safely in your house, after you have eaten and washed. You take these things for granted. There are millions around the world that have no food, water and electricity and no home, meaning no safety. To think of child who will grow up in fear, a girl each day with the threat of being kidnapped and raped, being torn away from your family and never knowing where your next meal may be – that is not the life you should be “ok with” for anyone.

let us destroy hate with love

On the weekend at least 49 people died and 53 more were wounded in Orlando, Florida when Omar Mateen went on a shooting rampage at the Pulse Nightclub. Mateen entered the gay nightclub at 2:00am Sunday morning and attacked the crowd with an assault rifle and handgun. The target was a gay club and its patrons and the issue, how someone could have access to weapons to cause mass murder. Yet ‘Islamic terrorism’ was highlighted by the media, politicians and more general society. This was an act of hatred. An act of violence against the gay community that has not been seen in modern American history. It helps not one person to make it about Islamic terror. It was an act of terror against people based on their sexual orientation, in a country that allows inequality against the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) community to continue.

Why was this crime associated with Islam? At the first the perpetrator was described by the media as ‘Muslim’ and ‘Afghan/American’. Then it was claimed this was an act of terror from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). To affiliate this crime with the most famous and destructive terror group in the world at the moment was bound to get attention. Then there was a public outcry to the reports that the FBI investigated Mateen for terrorism but let him go, and he was allowed to buy weapons. But before anyone, whether it be the media or one person on Facebook, highlights this crime as Islamic terror without the right facts they do a disservice to the victims and the future victims of hatred – whether they be gay, Muslim or other.

Mateen did not act on behalf of Islam. He just used anything he could to highlight his actions, including fear of and prejudice towards Muslims against us. It has been reported that Mateen called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIL before entering the Pulse Nightclub. ISIL is militant group that follows an Islamic fundamentalist, Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam. Although predominantly active in large parts of Iraq and Syria, they have claimed terror attacks in other countries. ISIL has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Islam, knows there are two major denominations – Sunni and Shia – and that there is a long history of tensions between them. ISIL target anyone that does not follow its extremist interpretation of Islam. On that day Matten pledged loyalty to the ISIL, but in the past he expressed solidarity with the Boston Marathon bombers and a suicide bomber who died on behalf of the al-Nusra front – which is a group that fights against ISIL. When Mateen was investigated by the FBI in 2013, it was because he expressed support for both al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni terror group, with similar aims to ISIL. Hezbollah are a Shi'a Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon. In fact Hezbollah has been fighting against ISIL in Syria, and in retaliation ISIL claimed responsibility for the suicide bombings in Beirut in November 2015 where 44 people were killed in a Shiite commercial and residential area with strong ties to Hezbollah.

The FBI investigated Mateen but nothing came of it because he was expressing support for various groups that have very different platforms and agendas. He was trying to get any attention he could. The only agenda he had was hatred. It has been reported he also said on multiple occasions he didn’t like blacks, Jews and women. To tie this act of violence to ISIL is to not only give them power, it also creates hysteria and anti-Islamic sentiments and most of all it diminishes the real victims, the real issue of discrimination and animosity towards the LBGT community. Mateen called 911 as he prepared to attack those in Pulse Nightclub because he knew it would create more attention. He does not deserve our attention, nor do ISIL. There are two issues that should have our attention. The first is the hate crime against the LGBT community and ongoing discrimination that leads to such hatred. The second is the availability of weapons in the United States so that anyone with a self-induced notion of superiority and power over other people cannot continue to cause this type of devastation.

In the United States in the last year there were over 100 anti-LGBT laws passed. Discrimination against any group spreads the idea to the community that there is something wrong with that group and creates an environment that breeds hate and violence is justified. By focusing on ISIL in any way when talking about the Pulse Nightclub attack takes away from the issue of inequality for the LBGT community and this is a never an issue we should be ignoring. Especially in the wake of members of that community being killed for that reason. We should also not be focusing on ISIL and Islamic terror as it causes a greater rift in the community and promotes hatred against Muslims.

Martin Luther King Jr said “Let no man pull you low enough to hate him”. Do not let Omar Mateen allow you to forget the discrimination that the LGBT community suffer every day that led to this crime. Do not let this man use his need to for attention to make you blame the Muslim community for his crime. If we really want to change this world, to make it better for people, we can never start with hate. Just hating others and blaming groups without the right information is a waste of time and only causes more problems. When there is a tragedy we all have the choice to be a casualty of the perpetrators hate and let it harden us to others, or we can let it bring us together and with empathy and love make changes that see the causes of the tragedy to decrease. I will always choose love, kindness and compassion because it is the only way that we can overcome those that spread hate and act with violence.

We need to all live our lives as an example that hate will never have a place in this world.

instagate - heros and hoes

The above quote by Neal Brennan is on the money. The backlash to any woman posting pictures either nude or in clothing others think is inappropriate screams of the sexism that many criticising say that are against. As Neal commented, two different sized women posing naked will receive two very different critiques. A man posing nude or revealing parts of his body is never vilified for being a bad role model or implied to be a “slut”. Dictating how some women should act, telling them their behaviour, which does not impact you is inappropriate, and belittling them for the same decisions as others only limits the freedoms of those women.

In March this year, Kim Kardashian posted a picture on Instagram of her naked with blacked over her private parts. You could see no more than any other nude “artistic” picture that is posted over all social and more traditional media, for example, the classic nude pregnancy celebrity photographs. Kim herself has posed naked before for Playboy and Paper magazine, but the March post got people angry. From Better Midler to Piers Morgan to Chloe Grace Moretz, the daggers were out for Kim K. Yesterday, football star Nic Naitanui posted on his Instagram a picture of the latest cover of Men’s Health magazine with him on the cover wearing a t-shirt. NRL star Sam Burgess, who has previously posed on the cover of the same magazine shirtless, commented telling Naitanui he should have got “the big rig out”. So for men it’s fun to show off their bodies. For some women, it’s brave. But for others like Kim K, there is criticism. How dare she show off her body? She is a role model for women, and you can’t be proud of your body and a role model. Oh wait that is exactly the underlying confidence that we do want young girls to have.

So here lies the debate – do we tell women and girls to not post revealing photos on social media because they are more than just “bodies”? Or do we support whatever they choose to do because shouldn’t we have come further than that now? Shouldn’t we be saying women have the right to wear what they want, post what they want and be as sexual (or not sexual) as they want. Anytime you let a man or women dictate what a woman “should” be doing as a woman, then as a society we are not where we want to be in terms of treating woman as equals.

I certainly don’t want young girls thinking that showing your body for likes on Instagram is the only way to get attention, to be a good person. But I am also certainly not going to start telling other people how they “should” and “shouldn’t” act when it does not affect anyone else. Whilst I haven't received criticism for what I post online (and if I did I wouldn't care), I do not condone that others do. Because I want everyone, but especially women and girls, to be more concerned with what they think of themselves than what others think of them. I want them to be more concerned with being better people than requiring the validation of others. But when faced with criticism, whether from strangers or those you care about, you can sometimes forget what is truly important.

I post bikini pictures, and other maybe “too revealing” for some, photos on my Instagram because I can. I wear whatever clothes I want because I can. Because that doesn’t define who I am as a person. If you bother to speak to me or get to know me I have done a lot more in my life and there is a lot more to me. And if you just want to admire my body, then hey, go ahead. Because no matter what people admire about me I will take it as a compliment, and what they don’t, as long as I am not hurting anyone, I will ignore. You can only feel as good or bad as you allow other people to let me feel.

Anais Nin said “Had I not created my whole world, I would certainly have died in other people’s”. Every day you have the choice to get up and live a life you are proud of. To be the person you want to be so that no matter what anyone else thinks, you are unshaken. That is the most important thing that everyone should be communicating to girls and women. So that they themselves have the confidence in their decisions and themselves, whether or not that means posting a revealing picture to social media. There are far greater problems in this world than what someone posts on Instagram and the more we all spend time worrying about that is time taken away from being educated about the real issues.

To live the happiest life you can, you have to not care what others think about you. When you get to that point you are free to spend your time on truly more important things. That doesn’t mean you are not a good person, actually it means you have more time to be a good person, to do the right thing by you and by others. To have the confidence and freedom to be yourself is one of the greatest lessons you can learn. So to those that have been criticised for what they post online, that defines them and not you. And to those criticising others, if it doesn’t affect you move on. We should all be too busy improving our own lives, and the lives of other people, that we have little time to criticise the harmless decisions of others.

when ignorance and stupidity meet

On the weekend hundreds of people participated in an anti-Islam rally in Melbourne. Organised by the United Patriots Front (UPF), a far right group which opposes immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. I must first note, that not all members (if in fact any members) are indigenous Australians. So those protesting are themselves the beneficiaries of immigration and multiculturalism. They obviously aren’t smart enough to realise this so let’s leave the blatantly obvious underlying problem with their campaign to one side.

What has made these people so intolerant? Why do you have the right to be this violent? What exactly has happened in your life to show you this is the way to act? This was described as an anti-Islam rally. What has Islam ever done to these people, or to Australia?

Meanwhile, the number of deaths form the Syrian War is approximated at 250,000 with almost half civilians and over 2.7 million people have been injured or displaced. In the last few days there has been 700 strikes on rebel held parts of Syria. Children are covered in blood as they try to play. Currently in Iraq, Special Forces are storming the ISIL held city of Fallujah were an estimated 50,000 people are still trapped. More than 700 refugees from the Middle East escaping war and destruction caused not only from ISIL but also the ‘West’, have either drowned or are still missing in the Mediterranean Sea in the last week.

Westerners love to bring up “terrorism” as a means for vilifying Islam. The most notable terror attack against the ‘West’, the September 11 terrorist attacks, killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. This led to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which caused over a million civilian deaths. The number of Australians killed in the war in Iraq is 41 and the number killed during the conflict in Afghanistan from 2002 – 2013 is 262. Of all the total casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, the US Military and September 11 terror attacks from September 11 2001 to September 2010, 99.17% were Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian casualties.

So I ask again, what do these Australians have to be angry about? I not aware that Islam is a problem in Australia, and even if it was, violence may solve a problem but it will always lay the foundations for another. The consequences of violence linger on long after the act. Many in the ‘West’ are more than happy to condemn the 1 billion Muslims in the world due to the actions of a minute amount that commit violence. Some of which have been lead to these actions by the destruction of their homes, families and country – who due to social, economic and political conditions have very little choices.

The members of the UPF and others that vilify all Muslims, that claim to be anti-Islam and use threats and violence against Muslims, have no reason to be angry. They most definitely have no reason to resort to violence. And if we aren’t condemning the entire Australian nation or the religion of those involved in the UPF, why do we think it’s appropriate to do the same to Islam and the people that part of that religion. To quote Don King, hypocrisy is the mother of all evil and prejudice is still her favourite child. Hate continues to cause many problems in the world, but as yet has not solved one.

what makes a terrorist

A few weeks ago a man at takeaway restaurant said to me “you’re not one of those Arabs aren’t you”. This man also went to say he did not like Arabs and that I should get rid of the black thing on my head, which was in fact my dark hair. Now I am not sure this man has ever met an Arab in his life, and even if he has there is no justification for this level of disrespect and hatred. In telling others the story, they are asked me how someone could have that opinion and be so happy to offend another person they have just met.

A day later, the commercial news stations in Australia were reporting on an incident in Russia where a woman was carrying a girl’s severed head. It was reported that she was wearing black and yelling “Allahu akbar”. Allahu akbar means in Arabic “God is greater” or “God is greatest”.  My social media and what I caught of commercial news stations were calling this a terrorist act. If a non-Arab person committed a crime and yelled anything about God they would be labelled “mentally unstable”.

Terrorist has become in recent years something that is attached to only actions by Arab and Muslim people. There is no international definition of terrorism but it has been defined as the planned use or unlawful violence or threat intended to cause fear or intimidate governments or society to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective[1].

From 1970 to 2012, in the United States (US) only 2.5% of terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims[2]. More Muslims die from terrorism than other group. Yet if you are to believe the Western media – and therefore Western society – the greatest fear we have is Muslim terrorists.

In the wake of the Brussels terror attacks last week, every expert expressed the well documented knowledge that terrorism is related to social, economic and political conditions. The reasons for joining terror groups and committing terrorist acts are a result of circumstances and/or pre-existing social bonds[3]. Studies have found that terrorists seek to develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists and it appeals to the lonely and socially alienated with the majority of terrorist organisations composed of unmarried young men, not employed prior to joining them[4]. Studies on Al Qaeda found a condition for joining was having a friend or relative in it and that was a greater indicator than jihad[5]. In other cases, terrorism is the only choice in failed or failing states to obtain an income or stay alive.

The attacks in Brussels two weeks ago and the Paris attacks in November were committed by brothers, and while this was described as a “new phenomenon” it isn’t. Terror groups operate like any other gang in recruiting members. Instead of focusing on the word of many experts the world continues to ask why such evil can exist. That Muslim people are all criminals and murderers. Refugees fleeing the violence of ISIS every day cannot be trusted, they must be terrorist too if they are Muslim. And this is why.

On November 27 2015, two weeks after the Paris terror attacks, Robert Lewis Dear, the man accused of killing three people and wounding nine others at a Planned Parenthood[6] clinic in Colorado was motivated by his opposition to safe and legal abortions. Mr Dear used unlawful violence intended to cause fear and intimidate governments or society to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective against abortion. But his not Muslim, so he’s not a terrorist.

In December 2015, 14 people were killed and at least 17 injured in shooting in San Bernardino by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Farook worked at the Inland Regional Centre where the original incident took place. He was at a party at the Centre, left and returned later to open fire. So a worker in the US, killed his co-workers using a gun. Well unfortunately that is not really a new story. Workplace shootings are well-known. But wait, he was Muslim so now he is labelled a terrorist.

In January 2016, a group of men in the US stormed a federal government building, armed and declared their plan to occupy it for years unless that influence government to obtain their objectives. There wasn’t blanket coverage by media, the nation guard wasn’t sent. They were an armed group of American ranchers, so this wasn’t terrorism.

Terrorism isn’t new, and it’s not something created by Muslim people. Many groups over the years have used methods, labelled as terrorism, to achieve their goals including the African National Congress, to which Nelson Mandela was a member and the Irish Republican Army. For the same actions, to label one person a terrorist and the other a mental unstable person, or worse not action taken, only isolates Muslim people, a main cause of terrorism. The fact that the media does not report on matters fairly is no excuse for ignorance and hatred. If the media and governments focused on what many experts have found are the causes for terrorism then we might have a chance of living without fear of it.

Albert Einstein once said “the world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people that don’t do anything about it”. We don’t blame people of other religions and groups for the actions of a few. So instead of blaming all Muslim people for the actions of a small amount that commit terrorism - due to social, economic and political conditions - we should be questioning why the media keep perpetuating the myths and our governments keep ignoring the experts.

[1] Michael Wallace (2012) U.S. National Security Requires a Legally Binding International Definition of Terrorism: Does a Broader Definition of Terrorism put us in the Proper Condition to Punish those who challenge our National Security?, Creighton International and Comparative Law Journal, 3, 105-127, page 320.

[2] START Global Terrorism Database (2012) National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), as retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd.

[3] Pete Lentini (2008) Understanding and combating terrorism: Definitions, origins and strategies, Australian Journal of Political Science, 43:1, page 136

[4] Max Abrahams (2008) What Terrorists Really Want Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy, International Security, 32:4, pages 98-100

[5] Max Abrahams (2008) What Terrorists Really Want Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy, International Security, 32:4, pages 97-98

[6] A network of not-for-profit women’s health care clinics that offer pregnancy check-ups, contraceptives and abortions.

ignorance is not bliss

On Saturday morning I woke up to my Facebook feed overrun with statuses and articles about the terror attacks in Paris on Friday night. I had seen no similar outpouring the day earlier in response to the terror attacks in Beirut on Thursday night so I posted a status saying

“If you’re #prayingforparis, then you should be #prayingforbeirut too as there was a terror attack there on Thursday killing 43 people. Just in case the Australian media hasn’t informed you”.

Mostly I got support. Many people did not know about the attacks in Beirut and some even thanked me for sharing that information. Some people choose to attack me instead, which didn’t offend me, each person that choose to see negativity in my post responded in a way that showed me they knew nothing about Beirut and terrorism. I can’t be offended by ignorant people. For those that that wish to actually understand my post please continue reading.

On Thursday 12 November 2015, two suicide bombers killed 44 people and wounded more than 200 in Beirut. The attacks took place in Bourj al-Barajneh, a district of southern Beirut, striking a Shiite community centre and a nearby bakery in the commercial and residential area, nearby a closely guarded Hezbollah-run hospital. Hezbollah, a Shi'a Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon, have sent hundreds of fighters to Syria to support Syrian forces against Islamic State. These are the worst attacks since the end of the civil war in Lebanon in 1990.

The attacks were in response to Hezbollah’s involvement in fighting Islamic State, just as the Paris attacks were in response to France’s involvement in fighting Islamic State. Lebanon is a country in the Middle East, but is not a country in a war zone. Beirut is one of the most beautiful, vibrant, amazing and liberal cities I have ever been too. It is one of my favourite cities in the world, along with Paris, Istanbul, Rome, New York and Hong Kong. There was an argument it didn’t get the coverage it deserved on the mainstream media in Australia because many people have been to Paris, but not many would have been to Beirut. I understand that Paris is one of the most visited cities in the world, and Australians do love to travel through Europe. But if the terror attack was in Washington or Toronto it would have got the same coverage and not as many Australians would have been there. The Beirut attacks did not get the same coverage on mainstream media because it is a city in the Middle East and the media like to frame the battle with Islamic State as just being against the “West” and “Western values”. It is not. Beirut and Paris were attacked for the same reason – due to their involvement in fighting Islamic State in Syria. Lives were lost to terror attacks in both cities, all those lives matter.

While many in Australia and the rest of the Western world like to claim that terrorism is the greatest threat to ‘the West’ and that these are Islamic terrorists on a religious crusade against the values and lifestyle of ‘the West’ have missed the facts. In 2013, of the five countries with the highest amount of deaths from terrorism[1](over 80 per cent of all attacks), none of those were in ‘the West’. Actually a Western country didn’t even make the top 10; all Western states deaths were included in the 10 per cent “Rest of the World” category. Even within Western countries the statistics don’t add up to these claims, in the United States between 1970 and 2012 only around 2.5 per cent of all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims. The rest of the attacks might not get the coverage on the media, but it doesn’t mean that don’t happen. Jewish extremists in the United States committed twice the amount of terror attacks as Islamic extremists. Groups motivated by ethnonational or separatist agendas, those motivated by single social issues (such as animal rights), and religious beliefs (for example, anti-abortion) were responsible for most terror attacks in the United States between 1970 and 2012. 

Muslims are actually the largest category of victims of terror attacks worldwide. The condemnation of Islam and Muslims after specific terror attacks occur only adds to the ‘us’ (the West) versus ‘them’ (Muslims) mentality that alienates people and is one of the greatest drivers of individuals to terrorism. The leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah has denounced the 'barbaric' ISIS attacks as did the French President Francois Hollande. The Lebanese people were victims of terror attacks for exactly the same reason as the French. If the mainstream media wishes to cover stories they should do so with the responsibility of treating all people with respect.

I was completely justified in noting the Australian media may not have informed the Australian public of the Beirut terror attacks. It did not hit the headlines as the Paris attacks did except for maybe on ABC. But then again some of those that had a go at me for calling out the Australian media also didn’t know that Christians committed terrorist attacks at all. There is nothing more ignorant than rejecting something you know nothing about. If you are not willing to be educated on an issue, then you should realise your opinions are simply just that, as Martin Luther King Jnr one said “nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. For those that don’t understand terrorism, other countries and people in the world, treating your opinion as fact is more dangerous than you realise. Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.

[1] Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria

for aylan, and others, we must never forget

The pictures of deceased three year old Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi on the shores of Turkey has outraged the world and, at least at this very moment, got the attention that all refugees deserve. No one should have to die for refugees to be given empathy and their stories heard but that is what our world has come too. The conflict in Syria started in 2011 due to an uprising against the ruling regime. It has now come to be known for the presence of ISIS. Terrorists get airplay, when their victims aren’t westerners, they don’t. We hear of the horrors of ISIS on the news. The Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the government, try to tell us in Australia they are the biggest security threat we have, and will do anything, even take illegal means, to protect us. Yet for the people living in the same country, where ISIS is destroying their towns, killing, raping and abusing them, we do nothing. How do the government and the people of Australia really justify this? How has the world become so divided and uncompassionate?

After seeing the image of young Aylan Kurdi the Tony Abbott said this, "we saw yesterday… a very sad and poignant image of children tragically, tragically dead at sea in illegal migration… and thankfully we've stopped that in Australia because we've stopped the illegal boats”. Yes, that was exactly appropriate, use the death of an innocent child that has only known war his whole life and died trying to survive and find a new life to justify your illegal and disgusting policies. Mr Abbott has said a lot of stupid and insensitive things in his life, but that one might have just taken him to a new level. No selling of your policy was needed Tony, only pure compassionate and heart.

The New York Times have said it perfectly, "it is inexcusable that some [asylum seekers] find themselves today in situations that are more hopeless and degrading than the ones that prompted them to flee". How can anyone justify a situation where people flee from war, from terror, from abuse, to be placed in a situation that is the same or worse? The image of Aylan Kurdi is horrible. Every picture of this refugee crisis is, and we need these pictures to remind us that we are so lucky to live in safety and that there are so many people in this world that don’t. The luck to live in Australia should give each of us the capacity to be grateful for everything we have and compassionate to all those they don’t. There is absolutely no room for fear of refugees, compared to them, you have no idea what real fear is.

The United Nations has estimated that more than 1.5 million refugees have fled Syria. In Lebanon, a country with a population of 4.3 million has nearly 2 million Palestinian and Syrian refugees. Yet in Australia, a country of over 23 million we are sending boats of tens or hundreds away. Families of Palestinians living in refugee camps have taken in Syrian refugee families, but some people in Australian suburbs don’t want one refugee family living in the same street. Are we naïve, selfish, insensitive or just the most uncompassionate, self-righteous society?

Tony Abbott is starting to make John Howard look left-wing. We currently have a government that would rather push their agenda than give basic human rights to its own people and the most vulnerable people around the world. We as human beings have a right to safety, food and shelter at the most basic level. The next time you fear allowing more refugees into your country or think to support the government’s despicable policies, remember the image of Aylan Kurdi. Think to yourself if you would like to live in fear of being murdered, raped and beaten each day. Think to yourself if you would like to have nowhere to live, no food to eat and no hope of that changing. Because the world cannot survive without compassion, and each day you are lucky enough to wake in Australia have a thought for those who weren’t. Tony Abbott might be a Rhode Scholar, but that doesn’t mean his words and policies are right. Great words come from great minds, greater words come from great hearts. 

maybe the media should get over themselves

Once the media gets their targets they don’t let up. Lately the Australian media are quite fond of calling out Nick Kyrgios for being the “bad boy” of tennis. This week it’s a sledge against tennis player Stan Wawrinka, which went along the lines of “Kokkinakis banged your girlfriend, sorry to tell you that mate.” Kokkinakis being Australian team mate. Yesterday Kyrgios was a wanker, today Donna Vekic is the “real victim” and now he’s on his way to being labelled a “misogynist”. Better call all the “first world feminists” in.

Sledging happens in sport. If that same sledge happened on the football or cricket fields I would probably be reading the article “Top 10 world’s best sledges” instead of “The real victim of Kyrgios’ despicable sledge”. Yeah it was probably not necessary to say but we can’t label one person a bad boy and the other guy a legend for saying the same thing.

If Donna Vekic is a ‘victim’, it’s only because the media are making her one. Even if she has slept with Kokkinakis and Wawrinka who the hell cares? It’s not going to taint her image or her reputation unless the person hearing the story wants to judge a woman for her personal life choices. The media want to pick their heroes, the bad boys and their victims. Yeah it makes a good story but in the end it’s the media creating the problem, it’s them making Vekic the victim, not a woman that can make her own choices and not have everyone jump to her defence because she can’t herself.

Feminists don’t need to berate Kyrgios. They don’t need to side with or stick up for Vekic. That is saying she needs to be looked after, that somehow what they are claiming should be something to be offended by and ashamed of. People have sex; it’s not really a news story. People will talk about it, again not really a news story. Something can be said publically about a woman’s sex life and we all don’t need to jump to her defence. The only thing we should be defending is the right for Vekic not to be labelled at all, whether the label is slut or victim. 

a little empathy will be goode for everyone

Every time I see fb post about Adam Goodes being a “flog” or a “whinger” I have the urge to delete that person off my Facebook, not because they’re not allowed their opinions but because I wonder how people that lack empathy are my friends. Humanity requires empathy and compassion in order to achieve non-discrimination, respect and equality. The treatment of Adam Goodes which has occurred, and escalated, over the past two years clearly displays that.

Adam Goodes is just one of the 71 indigenous AFL players, but he is the most vocal about his aboriginality, and that is where the issue lies for most Australians. Because he talks out, he is a whinger, because dares to challenge the “majority” idea, he is flog. And those berating him use the excuse they don’t do it to all Indigenous players and don’t understand you don’t have to be directly racist. Racism isn’t just saying I hate a certain race; it is the belief that members of a race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Those that don’t like Adam Goodes don’t like him because he comments on indigenous issues and he calls people out for being racist. To people that makes him a whinger, but not allowing him his voice on aboriginal issues is saying his experiences and opinions aren’t as important as others. That as an aboriginal person you don’t get to comment on ill-treatment which is occurring now, or happened in the past, and that we don’t respect your opinion and experience as we do the next person.

This is not a phenomenon exclusive to aboriginal Australians, for example, women who talk out on sexism are also called whingers too. What the majority of Australians that have not been part of a minority or subject to discrimination must know is that calling people out on inequality and being proud of a group of people in which you belong does not make you a whinger. Calling someone a whinger for sharing their own experiences is essentially saying you do not have the right to speak on those issues or dislike that treatment. The fact they do not have the right to speak out is because it sits uncomfortably with the power majority, with those that have inflicted the discrimination.

Not only do some Australians have no willingness to embrace indigenous culture they are offended by a war-dance being performed in their sport. The white majority have decided how aboriginals should act and the opportunities they should have and it’s not ok when they stand up to it. That is something that all minorities will struggle with, finding their equal place in a society that deemed them as unequal. The only way through that for a society is with compassion and empathy and a belief that all people are equal. Adam Goodes was never a favourite player of mine, but I personally can’t be prouder of him as person now for standing up for his people and his culture. I am not aboriginal, so I would never dare to describe their experiences, tell them how they should feel or how they should act in celebrating their culture. The same as a woman doesn’t want to be lectured by a man on women’s issues, or a gay person’s rights limited by the straight minority, indigenous people must feel to express themselves, and the current Adam Goodes situation is the complete opposite.

On the weekend the booing towards Goodes in Perth at the West Coast v Sydney game was at unprecedented levels. The guy who told Adam Goodes to “go back to the zoo” said it wasn’t even racist. Yesterday, former Brisbane Roar and Wellington Phoenix goalkeeper Griffin McMaster tweeted “Adam Goodes calls Australia Day invasion day. Deport him. If you don’t like it leave”. On one hand I realise you can’t reason with idiots and on the other the stupidity almost makes me want to deport myself. These types of comments are flooding my social media. How as a country have we become so uncompassionate? Yesterday with stories that Goodes is contemplating retirement from football over the saga people have decided to berate him some more and call him out for playing the victim. Goodes is still vilified for pointing out the 13 year old girl who racially taunted him. Apparently she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong; well that isn’t Adam Goodes problem. At 13 you are criminally responsible under the law for your actions, you certainly can be held socially responsible for your words.

There are no excuses anyone can give me that I will accept for the booing of Adam Goodes. He does not have a history of being a dirty player, and even if he did, the “dirtiest” player in history would not get booed as much as him.  The reason people boo and taunt him is that they don’t like him as a person, and seeing 99 per cent of them don’t personally know him, they are going off public perception. The issue in Australia is that many people dislike those that go against the grain, that talk about things we may not understand, that comment in an unfavourable way about Australia. But we must understand others before we judge. Opinions are the lowest form of knowledge; they are each person’s own set of beliefs on a set of circumstances. The highest form of knowledge is empathy as it requires us go past our own egos and ideas and understand another person’s world. That is something we are as a community are failing to do with the Adam Goodes situation. Those commenting that he is a whinger, and those further berating him for considering giving up the game, are not stopping to consider where Adam Goodes is coming from. Instead they form their own opinion based on their lives and circumstances and shout that out to anyone that might listen.

Nearly all people can stand adversity, but if you want to test character, give someone power. Adam Goodes will deal with this adversity as many others have before, but he shouldn’t have to. As a society we are given the power to be compassionate and tolerate, or to be selfish. We have the power to stop, think and understand before we speak. The current situation involving Adam Goodes speaks to a wider issue but we can start here by choosing to leaving the bitterness and anger behind and showing kindness and empathy for others. I hope the choice doesn’t reflect our fears, but rather the open-minded and tolerate country we profess to be. 

the right to equal rights

The decision of the United States Supreme Court on Friday that the Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law means that the bans on same-sex marriages in 13 states are overturned. The decision comes weeks after Ireland voted in a referendum to permit same-sex marriage. These are two of the most profoundly Christian societies in the world, with abortion still illegal in Ireland. Yet they can see that the right to marriage is one based on equal rights. There are two main issues for Australia in the discussion about gay marriage and that is religious views and that marriage is an institution in society that mustn’t be changed.

Australians love to complain when the interpretation of other religions imposes on the rights of others. Some of those that oppose gay marriage want to ban burkas and they reject the idea of religion being a part of politics and law-making in other countries. Australians wish to believe that church and state are separated but they aren’t and the conversation around same-sex marriage highlights that. Our Prime Minister does not consider gay marriage a major issue in Australia because he does not agree with it, based on his religious and personal views. Tony Abbott has said it is a matter for Parliament rather than a popular vote through a referendum. Although Parliament is meant to represent the people of Australia, although that is impossible if when the Parliament comes around to considering it some Members of Parliament are not allowed a conscience vote. Various national research polls from 2009-2012 showed between 62 -70%[1] of Australians overall support marriage equality with 81% of young people (18-24 years) supporting marriage equality. Over 50% of Christians supported marriage equality and 76% of Coalition voters wanted a conscience vote to be allowed on the issue. Not only should religion not be a part of political decision-making but the attitudes of the Prime Minister and other politicians ignore the will of the Australian people and restrict equality.

Protecting the tradition and institution of marriage is too often an argument to restrict the right to marriage to a man and a woman. The recent decision by the US Supreme Court comes almost 50 years since the landmark 1967 ruling in Loving vs Virginia which saw state laws barring interracial marriages being struck down. In Friday’s Supreme Court decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in the majority wrote “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times… The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” Just like many laws we have had in the past and interpretations of legal and religious doctrines, progress and time shows that what a society may have accepted as law and culture is no longer acceptable for a society that prides itself on being free and equal.

We don’t have a very long Constitution in Australia, and not one (like the US) that safeguards equal rights for citizens. For this reason the Constitution doesn’t do much to protect the rights of citizens from discrimination. The best we can do is rely on section 75, which allows the High Court jurisdiction to hear matters arising under treaty. Australia has signed The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination.

So although Tony Abbott says Australia will not blindly follow other countries to legalise gay marriage (already hypocritical as we love to jump on the bandwagon to war) he should not let his religious personal views hinder the will of the people and infringe on the equal rights of citizens. The problem is that Australians have very few legal rights maintaining freedoms. We think we have an enshrined right to free speech[2], a legal separation of church and state[3] and the right for all persons to equal under the law[4], but this is not so. As was profoundly stated by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis in their song about gay marriage, there is “no freedom til we’re equal”. And while we all can agree that each person is entitled to their own views, they are their views not to impact on the fundamental right to equality of others. So do whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn’t sink mine. We must realise if we become too idle at calling the government and others out on injustice and inequality our freedoms will start slowly sinking from us.

[1] The overall number of Australians that support marriage equality has almost doubled since 2004 polls showed figures, 38% of Australians supported the reform.

[2] Through the decisions of Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (ACTV) 177 CLR 1; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104 ; and Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 there is an implied right to freedom of political communication.

[3] Section 116 of The Constitution states “the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance…” In 1981, the High Court Justices, relying reading of the words "for" and "any", concluded that Australia's constitution through section 116 does not guarantee the separation of church and state.

[4] Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, section 5A outlines discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and in Division 2 which outlines where discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, section 26 states the area of Administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. However, there is an exemption in section 40 regarding section 5A, which affects anything done by a person in direct compliance with the Marriage Act 1961.