criticism and complaint, hypocritical and too late

I have previously written about the impending executions of Australians Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. A few weeks ago they were executed by Indonesia. Outrage took over my social media newsfeeds and commercial TV stations presentations. I don’t condone the death penalty. But what I have written previously and my thoughts now are not regarding the issue generally, they are regarding this particular case. In my piece back in February I wrote about the selective sympathy the government was showing in the case of Sukumaran and Chan relative to sympathy shown for other Australian citizens overseas. With much government effort and public outrage for months now, the execution of these two Australians has taken place. Whilst I would generally applaud the government and the public for taking a stance for human rights, it mustn’t be hypocritical or misplaced because that will achieve nothing. The “boycott Bali” trend by the Australian public and the tough talk of repercussions by the Australian government will not lead to change for a number of reasons.

Firstly, to have any legitimacy in standing up for human rights and opposing the death penalty this has to be a blanket opposition, not just when it suits you. In international diplomacy, human rights are the most inconsistent concern for nations. They are a moral stance which usually doesn’t bring about economic benefits by discussing them and will only open the flood gates for criticism of ones owns actions. To have any credibility in this area, the Australian government would need to have the conversation regarding the death penalty to the United States when they meet, to China, and put that out in the public, but they haven’t. From the public’s point of view, they should be boycotting the States of the USA that have the death penalty and most certainly for the outrage in this case, boycotting Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia, countries where the death penalty is imposed for drug offences. I have not seen any comments or trending hashtags for any of those boycotts.

Then there are those that opposing the sentence of death for drug offences, the government and Australian public it seems generally think this is inappropriate. It is probably fine for murderers and definitely ok for terrorists though. Here are a number of reasons why that isn’t a valid argument. Firstly, each country set their laws, and if the laws are not unjust, discriminatory or illegal under international law then the practice is to not intervene. Australia would be the first to say no other country has the right to tell them what to do, I mean we don’t even like the United Nations commenting on our actual unjust and illegal laws and practices. The crime of drug smuggling is a very serious crime under Australian law. The crime committed by Sukumaran and Chan involved conspiracy, organisation of a number of smugglers and a large quantity of drugs. The most serious of drug crimes in Australia will see a term of imprisonment of around 20 years, which is the same amount of time some murderers will get in Australia. Sukumaran and Chan committed this crime knowing the sentence that could be imposed by Indonesia and did it anyway. It is futile to complain after committing a crime that you want a sentence the same as what you should receive in your country, that is not how the legal system works. In Australia each state has their criminal law and sentences. For example, in one state you may receive a definitive sentence of 20 years for murder, you will be released after 20 years, but in Western Australia if convicted of murder there is a mandatory life sentence, with a minimum term set, but that doesn’t mean you get out then, your sentence is life imprisonment. I haven’t heard of someone from another state committing murder in Western Australia and then wanting to be sentenced alike to their native state because the sentence is lower.

Sukumaran and Chan didn’t just make a “mistake”. To claim we have all made mistakes in our lives isn’t a fair comparison, most people will go their whole lives without committing a crime and on a scale of crimes, this one is not merely a mistake. There was planning and conspiracy to commit a serious crime for individual profit. Even if the men were rehabilitated, this is not necessarily a factor if you have a sentence that does not include the consideration of that for the purposes of release and parole. A life sentence without parole or the death penalty are clearly two such sentences.

I would commend discussions about the death penalty. I would love the Australian government to take a stronger stance on human rights nationally, regionally and internationally. But for many reasons this is not the case to do. For over 10 years Sukumaran and Chan faced this penalty. A conversation with Indonesia on many occasions could have occurred and Australia taken steps to communicate with other countries within the region with the same penalty for drug offences. Over 10 years, Australia could have become a champion for human rights more generally in the region and internationally, and created a profile on these issues that was respected and carried the weight to overcome the difficult nature of trying to impose your will on another country. And while I have compassion for Sukumaran and Chan and their families, I have a difficult time that it is the most concerning matter on the international stage and in the hearts of Australians. The same week the executions took place, the 34th woman was murdered this year in Australia from domestic violence and the Nepal earthquake killed over 8,000 people. Each day there are thousands of children dying in wars in the Middle East. These are all innocent people. 

a day for women, a hope of a better tomorrow

International Women’s Day is held on March 8 each year to inspire women and celebrate women’s achievements. This and every International Women’s Day, I get asked by numerous men “why is there no men’s day?” Whilst most ask as a joke, some really don’t understand. To be honest, I would really love there to not be a day for women because that would mean that we had achieved equality. This year marked 20 years since the Beijing Platform for Action was signed in 1995 by 189 countries, which was an agenda for women’s empowerment and equality. But we aren't there yet. This is why, unfortunately, there is still the need for International Women’s Day.

There is not one country in the world where women have achieved equality with men. The highest score on the Global Gender Gap Index 2014 was .859 in Iceland. The top five countries, and the only countries to achieve over .80, were Nordic countries, with the rest of the world's nations scoring under .80.

In Australia, our biggest challenge is overcoming the epidemic of violence against women. One in three women will be the victim of male violence in their lifetimes - this is the same as the global statistic. More than one woman per week is killed by a partner or ex-partner. The overarching reason for male violence against women is male attitudes about a woman’s role: attitudes that can only be overcome through conversations and education about equality.

Globally, women make up just 22% of parliamentarians and only 7.4% of countries have had female heads of states over the last 50 years. Women make up half of the world’s population but represent 70% of the world’s poor. Every day 39,000 girls are forced into early marriage. Only 10% of the world’s income is earned by women and 1% of the world's property is owned by women. In many countries around the world, a girl’s access to education is limited, with a quarter of young women aged 15-24 in developing countries having never completed primary school. Two-thirds of the 774 million illiterate people in the world are female.

In Saudi Arabia, women are forbidden from driving, restricting their movements and freedom. In Somalia, there is a 90% prevalence of female genital mutilation/circumcision of girls and women aged between 15 and 49. In the United Kingdom, up to 30,000 women are sacked each year simply for being pregnant and each year an estimated 440,000 women lose out on pay or promotion as a result of pregnancy. In America, women on average earn only 81% of what their male counterparts earned.

That is merely a snapshot of what the statistics are for women. Women around the world live everyday with discrimination and inequality, with those in many countries more limited than others. If we are to live in a truly global world we must fight for the rights of all people and continue to highlight their struggles and achievements.

I look forward to the time we don’t have to allocate a day to celebrate women because it happens so often that it isn't a special occasion. I look forward to the day that we don’t have to highlight the need for gender equality because we have already achieved it.  

selective sympathy

I don’t condone the death penalty. Not only does it go against the international human rights framework, it can subject innocent people to death. The case of Australians Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan has garnered not only public support against their sentence of death but also all members of the government to ask for clemency. Whilst we can all hope that the lives of two people will be spared, it shows the selective sympathy Australians, and particularly the government has for not only Australians charged under overseas law but for the death penalty more generally.

Last week, China executed five people. This week, there were more executions in the United States. I have not seen any international condemnation of these cases or the rest of the executions that would have occurred around the world. Even you if wish to claim the outrage in the case of Sukumaran and Chan is because it is Australians that are being treated unfairly against “our” moral and legal standards, it is also misplaced.

The case of David Hicks illustrates this. David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and held by the United States government in Guantanamo Bay until 2007 when he pleaded guilty to providing "material support for terrorism". Not only was he held for 5 years without conviction, something that goes against Australian standards of justice, but his guilty plea was made under duress, and now, nearly 8 years later, his conviction has been set aside with no assistance from the Australian government.

The government at the time, was criticised for not doing enough for an Australian citizen being held in a foreign prison and without the same legal rights and processes as we would not only expect by Australian standards but also under international human rights law. Hicks was subject to torture, which is also against international human rights law and Australian legal and moral standards. The then Australian Prime Minister John Howard said that no matter the legalities of the situation “it was essentially a matter for an American court dealing with American law". In the last few weeks, the current Australian Prime Minister, and many members of Parliament have tried to advocate for Sukumaran and Chan and impose Australia’s beliefs, laws and moral standards on Australians charged under another countries laws and held in foreign prisons. At the same time, the government will not even apologise to David Hicks for leaving him to be tortured by an international government for 5 years without charge.  

The selective sympathy we wish to offer Sukumaran and Chan and the international power politics the Australian government is trying to play will not only damage Australia’s relationship with one of our closest and important neighbours but shows the government globally to be hypocrites.

Dear Mr Abbott, if you wish to stand up for your citizens, it must be done in all cases. If you wish to condemn the death penalty, you must do it in all cases. And if you want another country to show sympathy and change their laws and show mercy to suit you, you must be sure that you are morally and legally in a position to act with that sort of superiority.

the terror we cause

In what will be the 14th year since the terror attacks of September 11, it seems Western society is no closer to stopping terrorism, and it’s because Western society thinks they have no part to play. In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in France, the honour and virtue of Western society and the importance of ‘free speech’ have become far more prominent than remembering the victims of this crime and getting to the motive of those that perpetrated it. Western society is not perfect and it is not merely the “freedoms we stand for” that cause terrorism.

The attack in France this week was against French publication Charlie Hebdo, and they were targeted for their controversial depictions of elements of the Islamic faith. This doesn’t mean they were solely targeted for that. Reports coming out from the attack have noted that the alleged perpetrators were radicalised over the wars and invasions over the last 14 years in countries associated with terrorism and the history of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. Whilst I do not condone terrorism, I cannot sit here with many other people blaming terrorism on Muslims. I cannot erase the actions of the United States and other ally countries in the Middle East and torture at Abu Ghraib. I cannot be so stupid to sit here with others and think that Muslims, especially those linked to those situations, will see Western culture as the superior way of life because we say it is and forget the damage, destruction and death inflicted. While there are always going to be valid reasons for the actions of the United States and their allies in response to terrorism, the way in which those actions would affect others and radicalise those affected must also be addressed, or we will continue hear the word Terror.

Anyone doubting this should take a moment to consider facts about the United States and their actions on countries linked to terrorism. While not condoning terrorism, it is not hard to see how those affected would be radicalised and how the United States and their allies should have mixed hard power (military actions and weapons) with soft power (winning over hearts and minds) if they are ever going to beat terrorism.  An example of this is the United States drone program in Pakistan. Drones in Pakistan, a country not involved in any war with the United States, were meant to target solely Taliban high-value targets (HVT). A report in 2009 showed that in Pakistan between 14 January 2006 and 8 April 2009, that less than 2 per cent of those killed in the drone strikes were HVTs in the form of Al Qaeda leaders. Reports from terror experts show that drones by themselves do not defeat terrorism and that alone they will cause people to become radicalised. It is easy to see that people living in Pakistan where communities see the loss of innocent lives, infrastructure destroyed and the country destabilised would become angry at the United States and the ‘western’ society that are defending while destroying yours. That is just one example. The same can be said for other people living in countries where similar conflict and military attacks have taken place, where there is a huge loss of life far outweighing the number of western victims killed by terror attacks.

The alleged perpetrators in the French terror attack were between the ages of 18 and 34. For one of them the ‘war on terror’ has been around all their life and for the other two, their adult lives. For people living in the West it’s quite easy to place all the blame for the continuation of terrorism on the Muslim religion and Muslim people generally. Yet the mere talk of terror attacks in Australia, or the media portraying the Sydney siege as one, caused some Australians to already call for violence and the hatred of those involved. Imagine Australians if there were drones being dropped on this country on a daily basis.

While no one should ever condone violence and death, the Western world will never be free from terror if they focus on it being an issue stemming from Islam alone and not from their own actions. The attacks in France were horrible, together we must not only condemn them but work together to make sure that attacks like that do not continue. We cannot blame all Muslims for the actions of a few; we don’t do that with Christian terrorists. We cannot blame the Muslim religion for the extremists’ ‘hatred of the West’, the hatred of the West comes from the West’s actions, whether warranted or not. All terrorists should be condemned, but condemning them doesn’t stop them. So once we have globally denounced the actions of the perpetrators of terror in France and around the world, we must actually work to stop the continuation of terror, because no one ever stopped terror, crimes and violence with condemnation alone, the world can’t be so naive to think it will work now. 

turning 30

This week I was watching an episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians where Khloe turns 30. She is freaking out a little, then Kim explains she also freaked out when she was about to hit 30 and it was for the same reasons, life hadn’t quite turned out like that had planned, they weren’t married with kids. I had friends this year tell me about their friends also turning 30 who are feeling the same way. In two weeks today, I also turn 30. I am definitely not freaking about not being married or having children, because I haven’t tried to do either of those things yet. But if I look back to when I was 21, my life is different to what I would have imagined then, and not everything has turned out like I had planned.

At 21, I would have planned to at 30 to be living in London, working in human rights, still partying, and trying to change to world. I did move to London when I was 27. I had that life plan we all seem to make in our 20s. I had nowhere near the experience that I needed to achieve the goals I set and thought my multiple university degrees, my volunteering work and my passion would get me through. Those things got me to close to my dream job, but I kept coming up second, the one that just missed out due to my lack of direct work experience. I wasn’t going to settle for anything less than my dream in London so I came home to get the experience I would need. I had a great time in London while I was there, I made the most of it, I partied every night and definitely at least ticked that off my list. I also learnt one of the most valuable lessons of my life - that not everything turns out how you plan it, and no matter how disappointed you are life goes on.

I read a quote recently that said ‘nothing will ruin your 20’s more than thinking you should have your life together already’, which is so true. And that same thought means that when you get to 30 you suddenly feel bad for not being where you think you should be in life, because you had your whole 20’s to get it done. But when you get to 30 there is only really one thing you should have achieved, and that is the knowledge that being happy with yourself is more important than making other people happy and no matter what you are doing with your life, you should be living a life you are proud of.

F Scott Fitzgerald once wrote about life (many years ago) ‘we can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it… I hope you live a life you’re proud of’. These words resonate with me every day, because although I might not be living the life I expected I would 10 years ago, I am still happy, making the most of every day I can, and doing things that make my family and friends and most importantly, me, proud.  I have always made the most of life, but in July, my nonna passed away. She was a lot like me; I definitely got a lot of my attitude and stubbornness from her. But like every Italian nonna she often asked me when I was going to stop going out, stop travelling and settle down and get married and have children. I would tell her ‘not anytime soon’ and to that her reply would be, ‘go out and have the fun I never had’. Meaning she never got to travel the world, see the things I would see, meet the people I would meet. And even at nearly 90 she knew that was important, and to make the most of life you have, so I hope that all those hitting the big 3-0 can still remember that too.

Each to their own with how you want to live your life and spend your time but please don’t forget to be happy, to do things you love, things that will make you look back and smile, see places and spend time with people that make you better for it and make life a crazy adventure. Yes we probably can’t be doing what we want every minute of the day, we have to work and do things we may not enjoy that much, but that is life and I have learnt in the last few months that I soon forget the things I didn’t enjoy so much and smile at the things that brought me happiness.  It is never too late to change, to start living a life where you find yourself smiling every day. Find the people, places and things that make you happy and do them. Don’t wait, because although it’s a cliché, you never quite know when your time is going to be up, and even if you do live to 90, you want to be able to look back and smile more than you will regret.  Invest in people that invest in you. Ask yourself if you are spending your time on the right things. Life doesn’t have to be perfect to be amazing. Nothing stops you from being happy more than thinking there is only one way to achieve it and trust me being happy isn’t underestimated.

When the time comes to turn 30, I will be on a holiday with amazing friends, partying until the sun rises, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. Because although I may still act like I’m “23” I am very thankful I no longer think the same way as I did back then. I am thankful for my 30 years and that I have learnt to make the best of the life I have. Because we often dwell on the things that didn’t happen and forget to focus on what did. I am thankful for every moment, even the bad ones, because they really do make you enjoy and appreciate the better ones and ‘sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory[1].  I am thankful that my life plans didn’t always work out because ‘our lives are defined by opportunities, even the ones we miss[2] and it only ever led to new and different experiences I could have never imagined. As long as you are happy at 30 and proud of the life you are living, don’t worry about the rest. Life rarely turns out how you plan it and at 30 all you really need to have done is realise that and have the confidence, courage and knowledge that if you find you are not happy, you have the power to change that.  

[1] Dr Seuss

[2] F Scott Fitzgerald 

equality 101

“You cannot bring women and men into equal positions; that is against nature because their nature is different.” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The Turkish President, like many others, makes the mistake of equating equality with biology that a woman is unable to do a certain job or task because “it is against her delicate nature”. I have had many an education person tell me the same thing. The problem is that the equality not only women, but other groups based on race, disability and sexual orientation, are asking for is not based on biology. Not on the fact that one group has more testosterone than the other or one can give birth. Equality is based on human rights, on being free from discrimination.

Discrimination does not need to be direct; it can be a consequence of the application of laws even if they appear equal, in policies and practices of government, business and society. Customs and social practices, behaviour and attitudes can lead to inequality through discrimination. Women are usually the example given when speaking of equality and because in many countries on the surface it seems they are not discriminated against, the calls for equality can fall away easily. Other groups are also striving for equality and the freedom from discrimination. Those that are against gay marriage are being discriminatory; practices that unfairly target a specific racial group are discriminatory. To say that a woman cannot do something based on her “nature” and not her individual qualities and characteristics is discriminatory.

I am definitely one of the lucky women in the world. Yes I have a one in five chance of being the victim of violence at the hands of a man and yes I could very easily miss out on a promotion to a male of the same skill, experience and education because I may have a child one day, but I am doing much better than many women in this world today. But the basis for changing the world not only for me, but other women is getting people to understand discrimination and the real meaning of equality. That may seem like a silly notion, that most people would know what those terms mean and the application of them in Australia and the world but that is sadly not so.

Equality means that all human beings are free and equal. It means that all people have the same rights and opportunities. Discrimination based on race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, social origin, property, birth, marital status, age, disability and sexual orientation means that people are unequal. Treating a person differently based on any of those characteristics, directly or indirectly is discrimination. Sometimes these groups can be treated differently for the welfare, health and safety of themselves others. For example not being able to drink or drive at a certain age but these should be limited. For the moment you allow discrimination for any less than absolutely reasonable and necessary grounds you open the window for it to be abused.

Discrimination and inequality means limiting opportunity and economic and social progress. It breeds resentment, hatred and violence. It infringes on people’s basic human rights. It is crucial that all people know the real meaning of equality and how discrimination limits the freedom of others. Equality is good for all of us I will continue to bring you examples of that. The first step to changing behaviour is changing attitudes and that can only be done with education and understanding.

It is people that have created inequality; it is people that must now create a world of equality.

break the silence

"Everyone has a responsibility to prevent and end violence against women and girls, starting by challenging the culture of discrimination that allows it to continue."

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

November 25 marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and is also White Ribbon Day, a campaign that aims to break the silence and raise awareness of male violence against women. I have often written about the epidemic in Australia and around the world of male violence against women. The numbers have been repeated many times:

·         One in three women in Australia over 15 has experienced some sort of violence.

·         One in five women in Australia over 15 will be the victims of sexual violence.

·         It cost the economy over $14 billion each year.

·         It is the leading cause of death, disability and ill health for women aged 15-44 in Australia.

·         One woman per week in Australia is killed by a current or former partner.

The leading cause of violence against women is attitudes and behaviours that are discriminatory towards women. Attitudes in Australia include that over 40 per cent of people believe sexual violence results from men not being able to control themselves sexually and 20 per cent of people believe that domestic violence is excusable if people get angry and lose control. We are consistently told that these attitudes lead to violence against women. Most of Australia is outraged by the statistics. Yet it doesn’t change. In order to change attitudes it takes time and an effort by the entire community. It takes education that discrimination against women in any form leads to negative attitudes and behaviours towards them that lead to violence.

Nowhere in the world are women free from discrimination and violence. This is not just a private issue within a household - those are the attitudes that meant rape in marriage was still legal in Australia in some states until the 1980s. This is a human rights issue, a community issue. I want the numbers to speak for themselves. They should shock you. They should move you to say no matter what it takes we will change this, we will not stay silent. They should make you swear the White Ribbon Oath to never commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. The longer I am more likely to die from male violence than from cancer or a car accident, is another day longer that I am not free from discrimination, a day longer that as a community we have stayed silent. 

#idontneedtobeperfect

A few weeks ago Victoria’s Secret (VS) released a new campaign ‘The Perfect “Body”’ which meant the collection of underwear was the perfect fit, perfect comfort and perfectly soft (this is written front and centre). The campaign features 10 VS models in the different styles of the new collection. This campaign caused outrage and a social media backlash via #iamperfect. It produced a number of recreations with “real” women of “all sizes” because apparently this advertisement would cause women, particularly young women, to hate themselves and their bodies. So we better tell them that they are all perfect too, everyone is ‘perfect’ with ‘perfect’ bodies. Beyond everyone missing the point of the advertisement itself (perfect was relating to the underwear) there was also apparently the need to misuse the English language, feed into an outrageously narcissistic culture and shame the women in the picture at the same time. We don’t need to tell everyone they are perfect we need to tell them it’s perfectly ok not to be perfect.

I’m going to be honest here, but not all women’s bodies are perfect, probably no women’s body is. We can all find flaws in ourselves and each other. But your body, and well everything in life, does not have to be perfect, because it will rarely ever be, and what we all really need to know is that is ok. What really annoyed me about the outrage from this advertisement, well there were a number of things, is the need to first shame the women in the campaign. These women are beautiful, it is their job to be outrageously hot with amazing bodies, which most might say are close to the perfect ideal of a women’s body in the western world today. Why do we have to hate on them for doing their job, and in the modelling world, being at the top of their game. We should support them as most, if you look at their social media accounts, work hard for those bodies. I can honestly say I wish I could go to the gym and work that hard. Then there were the recreations where we decided everyone had to be told they are perfect, with women who were “real” because the VS models are fake robot creations here to make us all feel bad. Then there was online petitions telling VS to apologise for their “damaging campaign”.

The most damaging thing I could see from the entire situation was the fact people needed to be told they were perfect. That unless we told everyone they were perfect, we would ‘’damage” them and they might not be ok. Apparently it is better to breed the world’s most narcissistic society then for people to be able to deal with the fact that everything in the world may not be perfect. Because that will help people deal with failure, feelings of sadness or self-doubt when there is no one there. The greatest gift you can give to any person, including women and girls who were the focus of the backlash in this campaign, is confidence. Self-confidence doesn’t have to come from everything being perfect. It can come from knowing your worth, not relying on other people to justify your existence, not having to be externally validated, by doing your best and being proud of that. Trying to achieve perfection will in almost all cases only lead to you fail, because perfection is difficult, and depending on the context perfect may come in different forms. Yes you may be able to get a perfect score in a test, but your body will never be perfect to everyone, and that is ok.

What will be most damaging to women and girls is the idea that they need to be told they have the perfect body, that their body is their only currency. In a ‘more perfect’, I would hope women and girls have enough confidence and self-worth that they don’t need anyone else to validate them. Confidence that comes not only from feeling good about your body, but from being a good person, achieving your goals, getting an education or a dream job, from being happy with yourself and the life you live. Because there will never be enough external validation in this world if you are not happy with yourself.  It is perfectly ok not be perfect; you can only ever try your best and learn to be happy, and that is the closest to perfection you will get.

a legacy to remember and live by

For anyone that has ever had a conversation with me regarding equality and discrimination they will know my passion for it. I have spent many hours explaining the concept of equality to others and the fact that a world free from discrimination is good for all of us. But it is always hard, especially to those that have never, or feel they have never, beared the burden of discrimination to understand it or feel they need to fight for it. My way of trying to get people to understand is to find examples they might relate to. The fact that you have never experienced discrimination does not mean you shouldn’t fight for others that have. Actually the fact that you haven’t, puts you in a very special position in which you have the power to help others also be free.

In the last few weeks, with the passing of Gough Whitlam, I have been given a perfect example of someone that freed people from discrimination, discrimination that he was not the recipient of, but because it was the right thing to do. I did not know of all things the that Gough Whitlam had done, quite frankly I was thankful to whoever did them, but was not yet even born when they came to be. I have forever been thankful for those that have come before me and made the changes that let me live as free, and with as many rights, as I have today, but that has only ever spurred me on to work to give other people the same opportunity. I have always encountered those that have said to me, when I discuss social or legal changes to fight discrimination, “we didn’t have it in my day, why should they have that now”, or “we are doing fine now, we don’t need that change”. Lucky for me, those that came before me saw the worth in equality or I may still not have the right to vote and participate fully in society, get an education or work in my chosen occupation, have control over my body and the legal protection not to be raped in marriage. And to those that believe it is not their place or it’s too hard, or not worth it, let’s use Whitlam’s legacy, in which we were all reminded of the last few weeks, to inspire us forward.

Gough Whitlam in three shorts years in office set forward women’s and indigenous rights and made Australia a much more fair and just society. The extent of Whitlam’s changes may never be seen again. Yes, they cost money and in the end may have caused his downfall, but not all good things come easy and his dismissal should not be his legacy. Because as Cate Blanchett said perfectly of his legacy “I was but three when he passed by, but I shall be grateful ’til the day I die.”  Gough Whitlam’s three years in office saw unprecedented social change. The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. He finalised the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam and released all draft-dodgers from prison. Legal Aid and the Law Reform Commission were established and the death penalty abolished. Medibank (now Medicare) was created offering free access to hospitals and other medical services. Social security payments were raised and services improved for homeless people. University tuition fees were abolished meaning there was universal access to higher education.

Whitlam quickly changed the position in Australia for indigenous people and women, and these two groups are, and will be forever thankful.  Whitlam established the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and created the Aboriginal Land Fund and Aboriginal Loans Commission. He outlawed discrimination against indigenous people and passed the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and funded legal services for aboriginal people. Whitlam drafted the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which was later passed through Parliament, and officially handed over the title deeds of traditional lands in the Northern Territory to the Gurundji people.  For women, Whitlam was the first in the world to appoint a minister for women, stood up for abortion, removed restrictions on oral contraceptives, funded support services for women, fought for equal pay for women, established the single mother’s benefit, established parental leave for Commonwealth employees and outlawed discrimination based on pregnancy and preserved employment, as well as creating the Family Court which brought in the world’s first no-fault divorce procedures.

Just like Cate, I have benefited from the ability to get an education, obtain free healthcare if I needed it, choose to not be married and freely work which has enabled me to travel the world and really do everything I want in life. I am forever grateful for the freedoms I have and I don’t take those for granted. We may not all be able to impact society the way Gough did but we can all understand equality and discrimination and fight for others to be as free as we are. Discrimination is humiliating and degrading, it lessens people’s ability to live a free life, and it creates more problems than it solves. Before you next reject the notion of equality or discrimination, or a plan to change it, think about how it would feel to be in that position yourself, and if you can’t, don’t worry, just be like Gough and do it because it is the right and just thing to do.

extremism is not islam

This morning there were again calls for “law-abiding” citizens in the Muslim community to step in and stop the “radical” Muslims. I am so over this statement I can’t imagine how much all the “law-abiding” Muslims are. When a crime is committed by a Christian, we don’t call for “law-abiding” Christians to step in. When an Italian person commits a crime, we don’t ask for the “law-abiding” Italians to step in. Actually if this group of “law-abiding” Muslims actually had any significant contact or influence over the “radical” Muslims then we would be probably tapping their phones and having ASIO at their doors. I am not a radical extremist in any area and therefore I don’t know any other radical extremists, I would assume that is the same for everyone. Because unlike people with no understanding of how the world works, just because I have a particular characteristic I don’t know everyone else in the country with that characteristic.

The idea that all Muslims have a part to play in this violence and hatred of all non-Muslims is so absurd it is mind-boggling to think this idea has gone on so long. The only explanation I have for it is that the people that are spouting these ideas are so insular they have never even got to know a Muslim person. Because I can tell you that one of my best friends, the most generous, kind and peace loving person I know is a Muslim. I have many (I would have said) intelligent friends that even say things like “all Muslims are terrorists”. Which at first thought, is statistically going to be impossible, but we wouldn’t say the same for any other group, and we know that most Muslims are peace-loving, “law-abiding” citizens. In fact, the FBI found between 1980 and 2005 that more than 90% of all terrorist attacks in America were carried out by non-Muslims.

In the United States there are have numerous terrorist attacks by extremist Christians. In 2009, Dr George Tiller was killed by a right-wing anti-abortion terrorist group that had a previously tried to kill him and firebombed his clinic. In 2008, a Christian extremist, walked into a church in Tennessee and began shooting people at random, killing two and injuring seven. In that case the motivation was the hatred of liberals, gays and Democrats and anti-abortion. The group Army of God has a long history of terrorist attacks against abortion providers and members have murdered doctors and others associated with abortion. There were multiple attacks on abortion clinics throughout the 1990s which resulted in deaths, all in the name of Christianity. Eric Rudolph, who was a part of Christian terrorist movement, is responsible for the 1996 bombing of Olympic Park during the Atlanta Summer Olympics, which killed one person and injured 111 others. One of the deadliest terrorist attacks in America, the Oklahoma City bombing, was carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry L Nicols who were both associated with extreme right-wing and militant movements. That attack killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others. The FBI report showed 42 per cent of terrorist attacks during the period of 1980 to 2005 were by Latinos. Since September 11 2001, only 11 per cent of deaths from political violence and mass shootings were at the hands of Muslim-Americans.

Of all the terror attacks in the last 35 years, there have not been the same levels of discrimination or blame on the group in which the person doing the attacks was associated with, as we are seeing directed at the Muslim community now. All Christians are not held to account for the many deadly terror attacks which continue today. Latinos in America are not being asked to stop all other Latinos from committing attacks. The claim that “law-abiding” Muslims have some obligation to stop the violence and terror from radical Muslims flies in the face of all logic. When anyone of any religion, or race, or political persuasion is radicalised, the only other group that we should be associating them with is other radicals. Just like extremist Christians that are responsible for terror attacks, extremist Muslims who are responsible for terror attacks have missed the point of the religion, and misinterpreting it for their own personal agendas. The only division that people should see between each other is “good” and “evil”. What we don’t need is more people being misinformed, misunderstanding other people and ideas and spreading hatred. 

equality is good for us all

After ‘R u ok’ Day I started thinking about the issues of suicide, depression and other mental health issues. I know that depression and mental health issues effect all people but that suicide affects predominantly men. A lot of people don’t understand suicide, just like a lot of other difficult social issues. But we all need to realise not everything can be, or needs to be, fixed straight away, some things take time and work from all of us in a society. And we all need to realise that all issues and people need understanding. Dealing with suicide, particularly male suicide, is not a problem specific to men. Just like the issue of violence against women cannot be problem for just women. To borrow the words of Mr Farnham “we’re all someone’s daughters; we’re all someone’s sons, how long can we look at each other, down the barrel of a gun”.

I have often spoken about the seriousness of violence against women. That it affects one in every three women directly in Australia, and that one woman per week is killed by partner or ex-partner. In 2012, there were more than five males who committed suicide every day. Of the suicides each year, 80 per cent of those are by men. How can we not see that we all have to work together to help solve these problems. That your daughter or sister or mother or friend could be the victim of violence and that your son or brother or father could take their own life.

These problems are linked. Reasons for both of these issues are the stereotypical roles of men and women in society. Roles that have been defined for each gender create situations which lead to violence against women and male suicide. Men are stigmatised in situations where they are not standing up to the male stereotypes of strength and masculinity. Men are taught to be in control and when they feel they have lost that control it can lead to both suicide and violence against women.

All men have the propensity to commit violence against women. When all control is lost the only thing men have is their biology and male strength over women. Most men will not commit violence against women, but for some this is how they regain control. For others the loss of control will lead to depression and other mental health issues. One in eight men will have depression and one in five experience anxiety. While women are noted more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, men are less likely to speak about it and for it to then be undocumented, unrecognised and untreated. This can lead to suicide.

Breaking down the gender roles in society aids both men and women. Women want equality with men, it is what they deserve, it is their right. But even if you don’t understand that (I have met many intelligent people in my time who do not understand the meaning of equality), this will help women and it will help men. Breaking away from those male roles that have been created will mean breaking free from isolation and feelings of helplessness when things go wrong. It will help women be more equal in society but will also help men be more free too. 

Outdated ideas of how men and women should act is based on patriarchy and designed by men. Gender inequality and attitudes and behaviours about the role of women are the leading reason for violence against women. Gender inequality and the attitudes and behaviours about the roles of men also contribute to the leading cause of death among men – suicide.

I had been thinking about this and today Emma Watson nailed it perfectly to the United Nations on the world stage, thank you Emma http://www.mamamia.com.au/lifestyle/emma-watsons-un-speech/. Please read or watch Emma’s speech, as she speaks about us all working together on a project called HeforShe. We also need SheforHe, because gender equality, the breaking down of outdated stereotypes, all people being equal in rights and opportunities benefits us all. Ending violence against women has been my passion for many years; it has led me to volunteer in the area, be part of a lobby group to politicians and to study my masters of human rights. I know that gender equality will reduce violence against women, and it is a personal goal to see that achieved. It is also just and fair that all people are equal, and it needs to be realised by all people that equality would not only make the world a better place for women but for everyone. 

the inequality of rights

Over 70 years ago a tragedy occurred to which the world reacted and recognised that individuals had rights that needed protection. That was the holocaust. Based on racial superiority, millions of Jews were murdered, as were Roma gypsies, the disabled, and other groups persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioural grounds. The first steps on the path to genocide were state policies designed to isolate, disenfranchise, denigrate, and demean Jews. Since then the world vowed protect the rights and freedoms of every person  without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, or other status.

While we have come a very long way since the Holocaust, today in the world we allow religions to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or any opinion that doesn’t mirror their selective interpretation of a book(s) written thousands of years ago. We actually allow religion to disallow people’s rights and freedoms based on theories they have invented themselves. So why is religion so protected that their beliefs can infringe on the basic human rights of other people.

Last week in Australia, we allowed the World Congress of Families (WCF) event to be held in Melbourne. There were protests against it due to the ridiculous claims that were to be made under the cover of “religion” and claims of “freedom of speech”. As I have written about before there is no right to complete freedom of speech in Australia, there is an implied right. We need to balance the rights of freedom of speech and we do, you don’t see a World Congress of Nazi’s or World Congress of the Ku Klux Klan being held in Australia.

The WCF claim abortion, divorce, single parents and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people are responsible for sexually transmitted diseases, poverty, human trafficking, violence against women and child abuse. They support the Russian government’s homosexual vilification laws and think the rest of the world should follow. The WCF claim that ninety per cent of poverty could be solved through marriage between a man and woman and poverty could be reduced if only children were raised in traditional families. Actually the reasons for poverty are inequality, a lack of access to education and health and social and economic restrictions. On abortion, the event heard that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. A theory obviously rejected by Cancer Australia, the World Health Organisation, the US National Cancer Institute, and Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians. Also suggested at the event was that abortion was worse than terrorism in Syria. A women’s right to her body is apparently worse than terrorism, what is seen as the biggest threat to the modern world and has killed thousands of people alone in Syria.

The WCF event was used to isolate, demean, denigrate and humiliate many particularly the LGBT community and women. If the same views were being espoused against a particular race or religion it would never have been held. We have come so far, why are we still not protecting all groups from discrimination, and holding one group’s unfounded views over the rights of more than half the population. 

where’s the outrage

Last week in England Rolf Harris was found guilty of 12 charges of indecently assaulting four victims and sentenced to 5 years and 9 months imprisonment. The assaults included inappropriate sexual touching and fondling in an indecent manner. Last week also in England, four men and a woman were jailed for trafficking women, forced prostitution and rape. In this case there were over 120 victims, some raped over 20 times a day. Some were held for years in these conditions and subject to extremely violent sex acts that resulted in serious injuries. Their passports were taken and they were controlled with threats and violence. The main perpetrator in this case was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, with the other offenders sentenced to between 3 and 10 years imprisonment.

We have heard the details of the Rolf Harris trial and sentencing and now there is widespread outrage at the leniency of his sentence. I am not saying that Rolf Harris’ sentence wasn’t appropriate for his crimes, but sentencing of offenders involves many factors. There are the circumstances of the crimes, the offender, the victims, and sentencing standards for similar offences, among other things. Considering those factors in the Rolf Harris case the sentence seems appropriate and if anything at the high end of the scale.

Where is the outrage for the sentence of Vishal Chaudhary, the ‘boss’ of the gang that trafficked over 120 women into the UK, held them as sex slaves, forcing them into prostitution with threats and violence. It is hard to total the exact number of offences in this case. Chaudhary and his gang trafficked women for six years with some women forced to perform sex acts on 20 men a day. At its worst that would be 43,800 times for each woman. When the effect of Rolf Harris’ actions on his victims are spoke of, imagine the impact of Vishal Chaudhary’s. The humiliation, the torture, the sexual and physical injuries and that’s not even the long term effects.

Vishal Chaudhary received just over double the sentence of Rolf Harris, with at least 30 times the number of reported victims and if the number of individual offences were counted, more than likely hundreds of times the number of offences. Three members of the trafficking gang received the same or lesser sentence than Harris. Where is the outrage at the leniency of these sentences? In terms of sexual offending the cases of sexual trafficking and forced prostitution are at the top end of criminality. And if you talk of punishment and deterrent being the key factors in giving a high sentence, this crime of sexual offending is one that deserves the highest of punishments. In terms of a deterrent, the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world.

The greatest abuse of human rights in the world today is over 20 million people being subject to slavery and forced labour. And while we hope for a world where women are girls are not subject to unwanted and inappropriate touching and sexual harassment, my greater hope is that women and girls are not subject to rape, extreme sexual violence, torture and humiliation that most of us could never imagine. While I do not excuse Rolf Harris for his actions, I put things in perspective and my outrage is directed at the sentencing of Vishal Chaudhary and his gang of rapists and torturers, who held women in sexual slavery for years.

For more information on trafficking of persons and sexual slavery please see:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf

http://www.humantrafficking.org/

http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/

the best mothers

‘Having it all’, the term floated about over the last ten years or so to describe a work and life balance which seems to have become a one-sided issue for women. You can’t be in multiple places at once so ‘having it all’ can’t mean being a full time parent and working full time. Men have never ‘had it all’ either, so why do women now feel the pressure. In order to work if you’re a parent you will need help at some point to raise your children, whether it’s a nanny, or family, or day-care. In doing that you can’t feel guilty, that is life. And that is what PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi has just said, thank you for your honesty Indra. In order to work full time she has help. The misconception that “having it all” means doing it all leads to anyone thinking they can being certain to fail.

In the United States recently, television host Matt Lauer asked General Motors CEO Mary Barra, if she can be a mother and a CEO “well”. The real problem here is that men have never had the question - can you be a good parent and a CEO? They have never had to feel guilty for progressing their careers and not being home with their children like women do today. And why do women feel the burden, because as Indra indicated, if they are not home with their children, they might be thought of as bad mothers.

If you ask me I had the best mum in the world and it is not because she stayed at home all day. Actually I had the best mother because she did the opposite. I know my mum stayed home with me when I was a small child, but as long as I can remember my mum worked. And it’s when women are guilted into feeling bad that they think ‘my child will look back and remember me not being there’. Well what I remember is my mum working, then coming home and cooking dinner for all of us and cleaning, whatever was needed. I remember a superwoman who worked and was still an amazing mum, who did so much just thinking of it makes me exhausted. I remember a woman who taught me that I was capable of doing anything and everything I wanted.

Indra said that her daughters sometimes commented that she wasn’t there at school events and that made her feel guilty. But I couldn’t imagine having a mum that didn’t work. To me it’s been important that she has and it has never taken away from her role as mother. Whilst at the time your children might be disappointed, looking back I would rather a mother that inspired me, I would forget her missing a school event.

I am often told I have accomplished a lot for my age and I can admit I love to be busy. The drive to accomplish a lot comes from both my parents. I have been taught by them that anything is achievable, and not to limit myself. Women should not feel guilty for working and sometimes missing something. For working mums teach their children that women can do more than be a mum; that you can do many things and push yourself. Working mums teach their children independence, show them how to multitask and provide them with real role models. 

The best mother is the one that inspires you. The one that teaches you that you can do anything, that is strong and supportive, that loves you. My mum does that all and that is why I have the best mum. 

the danger in excusing hate

A month ago Elliot Rodger went on a shooting rampage in California killing seven people. The motive for the attacks was “retribution” against the women that had rejected him and the men that were getting the sex he should have had. He posted numerous videos on YouTube and a 140 page manifesto outlining this. To the girls that rejected him he said “I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it” and on the day of retribution he would “enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde slut that I see inside there”. It is clear he hates women, saying “Women have control over which men get sex and which men don't, thus having control over which men breed and which men don't. Feminism gave women the power over the future of the human species. Feminism is evil.” In a section entitled ‘War on Women’ he said “I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex”.

Before the attack the police were notified of Rodger’s posts online by his parents but determined that he was not a threat. They never watched the videos on YouTube and didn’t check a number of other sources that may have indicated Rodger was dangerous. After the attack it was described as the work of a “mad man” and that Rodger was mentally ill. Rodger had Asperger’s Syndrome, this may have led to some of the problems he faced in his life, but mass murder cannot be simply blamed on this condition.

If you take Rodger’s words and replace ‘women’ or ‘girls’ with other groups, this would have been seen as a hate crime, for example:

I cannot kill every single Jew on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts. I will attack the very Jews who represent everything I hate.

I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you blacks.

In fact around the same time an attack at a Jewish museum in Belgium was labeled a terrorist attack based on the target. There were no claims from the perpetrator of hatred in that case, that was not necessary.

By not seeing the attack by Rodger as a hate crime you miss being able to deter others and stop the same crime from happening again. Rodger's words and actions have been praised online and he was called a 'hero’ by supporters. While the authorities and many in the media blamed this on a one-off act of a mentally ill person there were others continuing to plan similar crimes based on their mutual hatred for women. On the weekend, University of Washington student Keshav Bhide was arrested, after he allegedly praised Rodger online, threatening to copy his deadly shooting spree. Bhide vowed to “do it right this time” and kill “only women”, bettering that of Rodgers.

One in three women will be the victims of violence in their lifetime, a statistic relevant in both the United States and Australia. Women are overwhelming killed by men; one woman per week is killed in Australia by a man. Whilst they are usually men known to the victim, the motive behind violence towards women is the same. The main reason for man violence towards women is attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate male superiority and decide how women should act. By not seeing Elliot Rodger’s threats as dangerous because they were against women, seven people are dead. By labelling his actions as a random act not compelled by hate, we continue to excuse these attitudes and behaviours and women will continue to die.

rise of the negative nancys

Flicking through my Instagram on Sunday, I was shocked by the level of abuse towards Kris Jenner. I am normally prepared for a barrage of negative comments but this was a whole new level. It was Father’s Day and Kris wanted to do a few posts to the fathers in her life. She started with Kayne West. Kayne, married to her daughter Kim, was celebrating his first proper Father’s Day with his daughter (she was born on Father’s Day last year). Within minutes thousands of comments were posted, all bar 0.0001% negative. How dare she post about Kayne and not Scott Disick, the father of her daughter Kourtney’s two children, Bruce Jenner, the father of two of her children and Robert Kardashian, the late father of four of her children. Well she did go on to post more. Scott in fact featured in the most posts (three). So if we just all gave her a minute we might have been able to save the nasties. Or if we just thought hey, she posts about Scott and Bruce and Robert every year maybe she thought it would be nice to do one for Kanye first or maybe she just didn’t really think that much and just posted what she liked to the fathers she loves in her life.

What really shocked me was the number of nasty posts, normally you can go through and there is a mix of support and abuse on social media. But what really continues to shock me is why there are even comments of this nature on Instagram. In order to see posts, you need to choose to follow that person or go to their page and look through. If you dislike people that much why are you bothering? There are a number of people I really couldn’t care to follow so I don’t. That is the beauty of social media, you get to choose.

But the negativity doesn’t stop there. Why are there some people that become the targets? Take another Kardashian, for example, Kim. Recently, she wed for the third time. Really so what, but that didn’t stop the comments and abuse. Apparently someone you don’t even know marrying three times is extremely offensive. Well I don’t really think I would see the same comments if Angelina Jolie married Brad Pitt, making it her third marriage. I don’t remember the same comments for Halle Berry, now on her third marriage with two children to two fathers or Kate Winslet now on her third marriage, with three children to three different fathers.

Then there was the mainstream media coverage of Kim’s wedding. Two famous people getting married hitting the news headlines and people complain. I don’t remember seeing it on ABC so if you don’t like the stories commercial channels show, change the channel. I quite regularly see stories on some news broadcasts I don’t particularly think of as relevant news – a story about a boy bitten by a snake I really don’t need to hear about over the thousands of people dying in Syria, so I don’t watch that news. You would really think people would be used to reporting on famous weddings. I mean what is a two minute comment on the Kimye wedding compared to the blanket coverage of the Royal Wedding. What has Kate Middleton done in her life that makes her more important and fine to report on? To be honest Kim actually works and is famous for it. She has a TV show, clothing shops and clothes lines to name a few things. And before I get any comments about her being famous for a sex tape, she had signed the contract for the show before that even came out. I don’t personally know anyone that has seen the sex tape but many that watch her show. So it is pretty safe to say she would have been famous anyway.

I don’t care if you don’t like the Kardashians or anyone else to be honest. But I don’t see the need to abuse them or any other famous people, especially for doing the same thing the next famous person does and no one cares about it. None of these people are heroes. None need to be held to any particular high standard or be praised. They also don’t need to be abused for living their lives either when they aren’t hurting anyone. So for all the negative Nancy’s out there, step back, get some perspective, unfollow and change the channel. 

we'll talk equality when we are free

In the wise words of Macklemore, there is no freedom until we’re equal. There is also no equality until we are free, and women will have not have equality until they are free from violence.

Violence against women and family violence was in the news two weeks ago. It was a big story. In February, Luke Batty, an 11 year old, was murdered by his father in front of onlookers at cricket practice, out of hatred for Luke’s mother. In April, Fiona Warzywoda was murdered by her ex partner, in front of her children, after taking an intervention order out against him. These were just some of the stories that made news and moved people into action, that violence against women was an important issue. For a week.

One in three women are victims of violence and one in five of sexual violence. At least one woman each week in Australia dies from male violence by a partner or former partner. This is the greatest issue facing Australian women.

If you listen to the government and their policies, at the moment the biggest issue for women in this country is paid parental leave. The government is willing to spend over $5 billion on it. Imagine what $5 billion could do to stop violence, to help save women’s lives.

The most deadly time for a woman is when she leaves. Money is urgently needed to fund services for women at this time, to help women leave and leave safely. A court order is of no value if it offers no protection from someone that only wants you dead.

But we also want it to not get to that point. How do we stop the violence in the first place? It’s through primary prevention. The main cause of violence against women is attitudes towards women that justify the violence. Funding is urgently needed for education to change attitudes and behaviours that lead to violence, or we will always be one step behind in protecting women.

In an ideal world, women could be free from violence, free from discrimination and get paid their full salary for maternity leave. But until then, let’s get our priorities right Australia. Tony Abbott, if you really want to be an advocate for women tackle the biggest social issue facing them and society, be better than the last government and put the money where it should be:  because we aren’t just baby makers.

single in expensive city

It’s budget time again and just like Carrie Bradshaw found, not much about being single is celebrated, especially without children, and that includes by the government. Singles and couples without children are forgotten in the budget, for “working families”. There is a disincentive to be independent, work hard and earn more money.

There are plans to introduce a “debt tax” for the rich. It would affect people earning over $80,000. In recent years this has become the benchmark of "rich" for a single person. A single person already has a tax burden of 27.4 per cent of their income compared to couple with two kids with 16.9 per cent, that’s almost 40 per cent less.

When did $80,000 become rich? If you are a professional, you would have worked for at least five years (generally longer if you leave University at 20/21 with the average age to have a child being 29) before having children. Most of the people I went to university (now accountants or lawyers) are earning at least $80,000 after five years of professionally working. That might not be the average annual income in Australia, but for the people I know, and many young “working” professionals, it is.

This levy is particularly under fire because of the expense of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The scheme, which (in the revised state) is going to pay full salary for six months for those earning up to $100,000, capped at $50,000 for those earning more, costing the country over $5 billion. This money would be paid whether or not you actually went back to work after the six months. If you don’t have to go back to work afterwards, isn’t this just a baby bonus on steroids?

Studies have shown that the money would be better spent on childcare, for when women go back to work. That means money is supporting people back in the workforce (good for the economy) and creates more jobs (good for the economy). It’s true the economy needs babies, and women are the ones that have to help with that. But the scheme needs to promote women in the workforce, that they are a valuable part of it and not just give away money for having a baby.

I can see how many single people or couples without children feel the burden of budget time. At the moment, there is little incentive to earn more than $80,000 with the tax system. Carrie Bradshaw had to become engaged to herself, in order to get back shoes that were stolen from her. Yes, they are only shoes, but she worked hard for her money to buy those. It seems in Australia, yourself is the only one you can rely on if you're “rich” and single or without a family, unless we all get engaged to ourselves and send the government an invite. 

the right to be a bigot?

A few years ago in my Constitutional Law class, my lecturer said in order to give one person rights you will take rights away from another. In law, for example, we give people the right to live, and therefore take away the rights of others to murder. In that case it’s clear to almost all that the right to life far out ways a person’s right to murder. There are obviously far more unclear examples of where certain rights should be enshrined within the law.

This week in Australian parliament we heard that people have the right to be bigots. Yes, I guess they do in some respect. But are we starting to live in a country where that right out ways another’s person right to be free from being humiliated or intimated in public? 

There has been much debate over the federal government’s intentions to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act). 

This section states: It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. The “act” is taken not to be done in private if it causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or is done in a public place; or is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. 

Section 18D provides for exemptions and “does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith” in certain circumstances including in performance, art or the media.

The government’s reasoning to repeal section 18C comes in response to media figure Andrew Bolt being convicted under this section. Andrew Bolt is a conservative and right leaning journalist. In the case in question Andrew Bolt, in the newspaper he wrote for, published a series of articles about lighter coloured indigenous Australian saying they were claiming their aboriginality for personal gain. It is not hard to see how they would be offensive and insulting to those people targeted, that is only two elements, it is also easy to see that it would be humiliating and intimidating being published in the mainstream media and repeated to the public. It seems it would meet all the criteria of section 18C and it in fact did. There was no exemption found under section 18D as the article was not found to be written in good faith and in fact included inaccuracies.

As much as you can try and defend free speech in this country there is another element of this that seems to be forgotten. The Act was written with the consideration of Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1969. This Convention obliges countries to not “defend or support racial discrimination" by any persons or organisation, to “prohibit and bring to an end” including by legislation, to “racial discrimination” and assure everyone “effective protection and remedies”.

Once the words “free speech” get thrown around it is quite easy to ignore everything and everyone else concerned. No one wants their freedoms to be restricted. But let’s remember, in order for you and I to have the freedom to say whatever we want, including to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate, on the basis of a personal characteristic of another, we make it a far less free world for those to live free from discrimination. What is more important?

I’m happy not to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate other people in public, when not in good faith, because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. I’m happy to personally fulfil my moral obligations and as a country fulfil our international obligations. I’m happy to give up my right to be a bigot, who’s with me?

the freedom to choose

I shared an article on my Facebook recently which seemed to stir up emotions; not only from my fellow Facebook friends but to the writer herself on the website in which it was published.  Amy Glass’ article probably would have put people out purely by its title “I Look Down On Young Women with Husbands and Kids and I’m Not Sorry”, but in reading it with a more open mind than it seems some others did, I could appreciate her point of view and agreed with some of her sentiments. There seems to have been quite a few however that didn’t, and the amount of articles in response posted on the same website (thoughtcatalog.com) were a testament to that.

Amy’s first line in her article also did not help to get people back on side, “Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit”. As a feminist I don’t feel the need to ‘validate’ every woman’s choice.  That would actually seem ridiculous that we needed to be that connected on all issues considering another woman’s choice could be at the complete opposite of what I might agree with. I don’t see myself validating any racist, sexist, homophobic women just yet. But we should at least not feel the need to attack another woman on a personal level for her opinions. That is in fact what some of the other articles I have read in response have done to Amy Glass, which only reinforces my interest back into her article and her courage in publishing it. Even more so because one of the more interesting replies to Amy was by someone called Anonymous: “I Feel Sorry For Amy Glass And I’m Not Ashamed”.

The debate on the various roles for women seems to divide women instead of bringing them together. The fact that a system, built by men, placed women in the position of wife and mother only for many years seems to have been forgotten.

The two articles centre on a debate about the importance of getting married and having children. Amy Glass actually stated that having kids and getting married weren’t accomplishments,   “They are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average”. Anonymous then got confused and to this replied “getting married and having kids ARE milestones”. Although those things may be milestones in life, it doesn’t necessarily make them accomplishments. Having a child I would say is an accomplishment, not quite getting married, which I’m glad Anonymous agreed with some few seconds later, “Pretty much anyone can GET married” and that it was staying married that would be the harder part. I would say staying married is no harder than staying in any other type of partnership for the same period of time.

Personally for me getting married and having a child would be much quicker and easier to achieve than completing my university degrees and landing my dream job.  So I agree with Amy’s sentiment. I do however see many women that find greater solace and enjoyment from being a mother. I do not discredit this choice, rather I feel for many years it’s actually been greatly admired by all in the community and is a highly regarded role for women. The issue at the moment is also admiring other choices women make that are sometimes more difficult and greater accomplishments for them to achieve.

This is not how I saw the rebuttal articles to Amy’s play out. Instead we got into insults such as this from Anonymous “Based on your article I will assume you have been unable to do either [marriage or having children], so maybe it’s not as easy as you think.” As I have already noted, bearing in mind I haven’t tried to have children; I could definitely be married by now if I wanted to. Just because someone hasn’t done something doesn’t mean they can’t.

Anonymous then went on to patronise Amy by claiming she was “chef”, “doctor” and “teacher”. By her examples, I don’t think she is any of those and in the course of that undermined every other person that has achieved those positions and I am sure feels a sense of accomplishment for doing so.

What would be amazing is if we only felt sorry for those women that felt the need to humiliate other women. For those women that didn’t recognise that there are plenty of ways in which they can be successful in life and that luckily enough in 2014 women have the opportunity to not only be mothers and wives but to choose whatever life they want for themselves. If you want to be a mother that is fine and congratulations, but with the freedom and ability to get an education, land a dream job, help save someone’s life, make substantial change in the lives of others well beyond your own and be independent how can we disparage a woman for choosing to do so.