During the past year I’ve had the great privilege of coming to know and love (in a strictly NON-Biblical sense) the amazing Jane Douglas. Jane is a writer, an editor, an artist, a photographer, an ex-wife, a mother of seven (yes, seven!), a student and a gay rights campaigner. She is, quite simply, an amazing, intelligent, articulate, feisty, switched on woman.
The story of Jane’s life is both bizarre and gruelling. It will be some time before Jane is ready to tell her whole story, but, oh, I do look forward to that day!
When I first heard just a little of Jane’s history I can vividly remember saying, “Fuck me dead, Jane!”
I also recall that she wrote back to me saying, “Do you know how nice it is to have friends who say ‘fuck me dead’?”
You see, for 20 years, Jane was involved in the Quiverfull sect. It’s cultish but members attend mainstream churches so Jane’s religious life was not spent in some weirdo Waco-like compound. She has wide experience of the kinds of churches that everyday Aussie Christians attend.
As Jane explained to me, in Quiverfull, rather than the ‘church‘ being the cult, each family is its own little cult. Adhering to the kind of marriage Archbishop Jensen advocated on Q&A this week, in a Quiverfull marriage, the husband is the head of the household and the wife is submissive (hence the seven kids!)
Watching Q&A on Monday night ignited some pretty unpleasant memories for Jane and, after reading my blog post, she felt compelled to write to Catherine Deveny. Jane CC’d me in on her email to Dev and, because her letter was so powerful both Catherine and I encouraged her to share it publicly – providing she was comfortable in doing so. In fact, as soon as I read it, I rang Jane and said, “You HAVE to publish this!”
I note that someone who has already read Jane’s post has just tweeted: “WOW! – in the fullest appreciation & amazement that “WOW!” was invented for”
That was pretty much my own reaction.
Why? Because apart from being an excellent writer, Jane’s past experience gives her a unique perspective on the dynamics between Jensen and Deveny on Monday night. While some of us thought Jensen’s demeanor was oddly ‘creepy’ it was hard to put a finger on just what was going on between them that made (some) of us so uncomfortable. Dev has written about feeling that he was pure evil. (I must admit to having the same visceral reaction to Cardinal Pell!)
I’ll say no more, but simply recommend that you read Jane’s take on what might have been going on on Monday night. It’s certainly something that most of us would have been oblivious to but Jane makes a compelling case ….
Please read and enjoy the work of a brilliant, new, emerging writer – my friend, Jane Douglas.
The stereotyping of atheists as ‘militant’ has now become so common it’s even used as a perjorative by atheists against other atheists.
“No, I don’t believe the state should fund religious schools,” I said at a recent meeting of the Sunshine Coast Atheists.
“Oh, so you’re a militant atheist, then?” responded one of our more elderly members as I sat before him with my fluffy blonde hair and blingy earrings, sipping mildly on a glass of white wine.
Militant? Moi?
As my friend Warren Bonett notes in The Australian Book of Atheism (Bonnett, ed. 2010, p. 328), think of a religious militant and you’ll most likely picture someone wielding a gun. Think of a militant atheist and you’re likely to conjure up an image of Richard Dawkins with a bit of colour in his cheeks.
Yet, Dawkins’ critics routinely accuse him of being ‘militant’, ‘shrill’ and ‘strident’. Anyone who has heard Dawkins speak should be able confirm that his calm, mellifluous tones and reasoned arguments are anything but strident. At worst, he may sometimes throw in a cheeky one-liner. But strident? Militant? Loud? Aggressive? No.
So, why this misperception? Why do people project these kinds of negative attributes onto others? Of course, some people actually are militant, shrill and strident. But could it be that, in some cases, there’s a kind of auditory illusion in play? Could it be that because Dawkins says things that make people uncomfortable; breaks the social taboo which says that religious beliefs must be ‘respected’; and, refuses to ‘stay in his place’ as a tweedy, bookish, Oxford don, he is perceived to be something which, viewed dispassionately, he clearly is not?
Here’s Dawkins defending himself against the charges:
This kind of misperception can also arise out of the cultural bias of gender stereotyping. Even in today’s enlightened society, powerful females are routinely castigated for failing to conform to social expectations. Sadly – even amongst the liberal intelligentsia – there’s a deeply ingrained, perhaps even subconscious, belief that ‘mouthy’ or assertive females with strong opinions should just ‘shut the fuck up’.
For example, when ABC journalist, Leigh Salesheld Tony Abbott’s feet to the fire on ABC’s 7.30 program, recently, she was branded as shrill and aggressive. For some, a woman publicly holding a man to account is deeply discomfiting. Perhaps that’s why Liberal Party strategist, Grahame Morris, carped, “… Leigh can be a real cow sometimes …”
In similar vein, I’m reminded of Alan Jones’ suggestion that Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, should be ‘put in a chaff bag and dumped at sea’.
As the recipient of this kind of criticism, myself, I should not have been surprised at the fall-out from Catherine Deveny’s appearance on ABC’s Q&A this week. Deveny’s opposition to Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, resulted in an onslaught of vitriolic criticism and abuse – even from those who claim to support her positions on asylum seekers, same-sex marriage and women’s equality.
Even the Australian weighed in with an editorial reprimanding Deveny and the ABC for failing to show the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney ‘proper regard’ and ‘respect’.
While the Australian characterises (or more accurately, caricatures) Deveny as mocking, crude, crass and intolerant, Jensen is ‘frank, concerned and conciliatory on homosexual health issues’. Deveny, we are told, was guilty of ‘shouting down’ the Archbishop.
The criticism on Twitter went into overdrive. According to comments on the #qanda Twitter stream Deveny is: an ugly, extremist, stupid, unintelligent, idiotic, thoughtless, self-righteous, self-centred, self-absorbed, nasty, confused, frustrated, bitter, twisted, humourless, un-funny, unreasonable, unrespectable, disrespectful, sarcastic, mocking, catty, hateful, boorish, blustering, bullying bitch.
Deveny, her critics tell us, is not only irritating, but fucking annoying, embarrassing and cringe-making. Lathamesque, she is a useless, satanistic, psycho, nutter, hysterical, raving lunatic, bogan, dickhead, troll and PC thug who acted like an absolute tit and brought down the tone of the whole program with her tiresome schtick.
Her own worst enemy, Deveny was, apparently: ridiculous, a graceless, uncouth pundit – mutton dressed as lamb – and her awful, outraged, rehearsed ranting turned into a train-wreck as (loving the sound of her own voice) she yelled everyone down while spouting only t-shirt slogans. This ‘showboating #%^*+•’€|£ ‘ should, according to the Twitterverse, learn to debate without yelling, shut her pie-hole, shut the fuck up, be gagged, have a sock put in her mouth, have a burqa thrown over her and go to hell.
Some critics decided that abusing Deveny on Twitter was ‘a step not far enough’. Eager that she should not miss their valuable opinions on her Q&A performance Dev’s been receiving email:
“You lack manners and the ability to listen to others showing no decorum or any social graces,” writes NJ (male) in an email headed ‘Motormouth’.
“Didn’t you hear us all yelling at you to just shut up?” writes AR (female). “You are not clever – you’re just plain rude and you continue to set back the cause of women every time your very loud voice trumps those of others we would all like to hear.”
“Why does it come as no surprise to me (and many others) that you are not married,” writes Jason of Brisbane who doesn’t have the testicles to give a last name.
Jason’s tirade, entitled “Arrogant annoying shifty bitchiness” includes the following gems:
“I doubt you can find one man that could bare [sic] to even sit down to dinner with you for 30 minutes.”
“Can’t wait for the revolution where we shoot all the extremists on the left and right who just get off on grandstanding on issues in which they will never make a dent in anyone’s opinion.”
Then, tellingly:
“… my mother was just like you, she was full of just as much deflective shit, living her own lies and never able to hold her tongue, never wrong. I don’t even talk to her anymore for the same reasons I can’t stand listening to anything you have to say, even when I agree with you, actually especially when I agree, it makes me question those beliefs when they align with crazed bitches like yourself.”
“Don’t bother replying,” Jason signs off, “I am [an] evil white male who couldn’t give a fuck what you have to say, but thanks for reading what I had to say bitch.”
TH (an agricultural specialist, apparently) was more succinct: “What a great display your listening skills, tolerance of peoples [sic] beliefs and your sense of humour you fat disgusting loud slag.”
Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? How could so many people be wrong? It’s very clear from the criticisms directed against her that Deveny rudely talked over her fellow panellists, shouted, yelled and dominated the conversation.
Or did she?
Yesterday, I spent a very long, boring day undertaking a forensic examination of the transcript of Monday’s night’s episode of Q&A. It yielded some fascinating results.
Curiously, as this was one of the rare Q&A’s where the women (Catherine Deveny, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Anna Krien) outnumbered the men, the male guests (Peter Jensen and Chris Evans) still managed to dominate the conversation 55 per cent to 45 per cent.
Far from being drowned out by Deveny’s aggressive interruptions, Archbishop Peter Jensen actually racked up a word count double that of Deveny’s – more, even, than Deveny and the equally loquacious Concetta Fierravanti-Wells combined.
No wonder when Q&A host, Tony Jones, silenced Deveny to give the final word to Jensen, she snapped in frustration, “Yeah, I think he said plenty of words!”
Indeed! In terms of word count, Jensen even spoke more than the host, Tony Jones!
Here’s the word count score card:
Peter Jensen: 2,592 words
Tony Jones (host): 1877 words
Chris Evans: 1,397 words
Catherine Deveny: 1,259 words
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells: 1,242 words
Anna Krien: 775 words
(Anna Krien, interrupted three times by Jones (but not once by Deveny), was effectively sidelined for the evening. She must have been silently fuming at the affront.)
The average number of words spoken by the panellists on Monday night’s Q&A was 1,450 words. Deveny’s contribution of 1,259 words was 13 per cent below the average. Jensen’s, on the other hand, was 78 per cent above the average. Please stop a moment and let that sink in.
Fact: Deveny did not dominate the Q&A panel, nor did she manage to drown out Jensen or any of the other panellists.
So, what about interruptions? Did Deveny really ruin the program by rudely talking over everyone? I checked. The answer is, “No, she didn’t.”
In examining the transcript, I considered an ‘interruption’ as any interjection which stopped the previous speaker from completing their sentence (usually marked by ellipses in the transcript). In some cases, Jones interrupts by his own admission, “I’m sorry to interrupt you, but …” and I counted these as well.
Here’s the interruption score card:
Archbishop Jensen (supposedly the most polite panellist) interrupted the host three times. He also interrupted Deveny once. Jensen scores four interruptions.
Deveny was far more ‘submissive’ to Jones’s authority than the Archbishop; she interrupted the Q&A host only once. In addition, Deveny interrupted Jensen twice and Evans once, making her ‘interruption quotient’ exactly the same as Jensen’s.
Considering the transcript dispassionately, Deveny was no more or less disruptive* than the Archbishop.
Well, maybe Jensen did manage to speak quite a bit, but, by God, he had to struggle against Deveny’s constant interruptions, didn’t he?
Well, “No”.
It’s true that Jensen was interrupted six times, but don’t blame Deveny! She only interrupted Jensen twice while host, Tony Jones, interrupted him four times. Deveny, herself, was interrupted three times during the course of the program (by Evans, Jones and Jensen).
Perhaps Deveny was allowed to dominate the conversation some other way? Did Jones, for example, displaying his ‘well-known left-wing bias’, call on her to speak more often than the other panellists?
Not at all. In fact, Deveny was only asked to speak four times during the program (and once more by an audience member). Further, despite having been far less verbose than Jensen, Deveny was twice requested to ‘keep it brief’. In contrast, Jones asked Jensen to comment eight times (Krien and Wells, six and Evans, four).
So, of all the panellists, Deveny (along with Evans) was given the least opportunity to speak by the host.
The fact is, criticism of Deveny is based on a biased misperception of her performance.
She is accused of rudely dominating Q&A on Monday night, yet she spoke only half as much as Jensen.
She was invited to speak fewer times than all the guests except Evans, and only half as many times as Jensen.
In addition, she interrupted no more than Jensen did and interrupted the host considerably less.
So, maybe it was just because Deveny was so damn shouty and loud that everyone thought she was taking over the program, eh?
Nope.
I asked a professional sound engineer to listen to the audio of the program to ascertain whether Deveny’s voice was routinely raised above the volume of the other guests.
His response, after examining the audio, was to say that, as he expected, Q&A’s audio director ensures the sound is compressed and filtered so that all voices come through at a consistent level ‘within tolerances below which pretty much any normal person could detect.’
In other words, even if Deveny had been shouting (and there is no evidence that she was), there is no way a viewer could tell that from watching the program online or on television.
The sound technician explained:
“All radio and TV audio is heavily processed in the desk in the first place and then again via a finalizer before being broadcast – there’s very little variance in volume. With what was broadcast, there’s no way for a non-physical audience member to prove Catherine Deveny shouted or even noticeably raised her voice.”
So, did Deveny yell, shout or raise her voice on Q&A? Certainly not so as any armchair critic could notice. If they thought she was ‘shouting’ it was because of their own biases, not because the volume increased when Deveny spoke.
“Men speak, women are outspoken. Men have opinions, women are opinionated. Men are passionate, women rant. Men have mouths. Women are mouthy,” Deveny observes.
“Having the misfortune of being born with an opinion and a vagina, I am no stranger to these trolls who try to get my attention on an hourly basis. Women who colour outside the lines cop a hundred times more vitriol than men and it’s a thousand times more vicious.”
It is interesting that, according to Deveny, Peter Jensen specifically asked to be seated next to her on Q&A. Was it strategic? Did Jensen intentionally pitch his delivery to contrast favourably with hers? If so, it seemed to work – although not all viewers were taken in.
As Ruth Liston (@ruthieboots) commented on Twitter:
“The gross violence of Jensen’s soft-spoken misogyny and homophobia is infinitely more harmful than Deveny’s well-meaning brashness.”
Similarly, @bijayci ** noted:
“… [Jensen] gave out more jibes and insults than loud deveny but in [a] smoothe [sic] smarmy voice to fool all.”
@DavidW2035 agreed, tweeting:
“Just because you are sexist and homophobic in a genteel way does not make your words less aggressive.”
So, what was Deveny’s crime?
She went on to Q&A and argued eloquently for the plight of asylum seekers.
“It is extraordinary that we’re not doing our basic obligations as signatories to the UN Refugee Convention. We shouldn’t just be doing what the UN suggests we should be doing, we should be doing so much more. We have so much to give,” she said.
“Detention centres are well known to be factories for mental illness. It’s just not good enough.”
“Do you know how many terrorists have arrived on boats into our country? Zero.”
“This is not about stopping the boats, this is about starting the planes.”
Then, she argued for the right of same-sex couples to marry – even though she doesn’t believe in marriage herself:
“For me rights are rights. It doesn’t need an argument. People are people and nobody should be able to stand in the way of how people want to celebrate their love.”
Intolerant?
No. In fact, she told Jensen, “I do support your right to discriminate within your religion”.
And, (quite rightly, in my view), she warned the Archbishop that advancing the antediluvian view that wives should be submissive to their husbands is hardly likely to improve the alarming decline in church attendance.
Why should that be sugar-coated; especially in light of the argument from audience member, Bronwyn Fraser, who said:
“I work with Christian cultures – women in Christian cultures overseas who do have this biblical wife submission approach to marriage and they also report some of the highest levels of domestic violence and sexually-based violence.”
No matter how softly phrased, how gently put, Jensen’s views, combined with the power inherent in his position, do real harm to real people.
I cannot for the life of me understand why Deveny should have been required to pander to his passive-aggressive proselytising.
When the Archbishop failed to denounce the smear-campaign and fear-mongering of the Australian Christian Lobby’s Jim Wallace (please refer to my blog post on this shameful propaganda), Deveny responded, not with propaganda, but with the view shared by the overwhelming majority of peak mental health bodies:
“… homosexuality is not a health risk. Homophobia is a health risk. Hate kills. Hate causes suicide. Hate causes self-harm and hate causes depression. It’s not homosexuality, it’s homophobia.”
After the program I had two phone calls. The first, was from from Gregory, a gay male friend – a mature, professional man in a stable same-sex relationship. He said that, despite having long since come to terms with his sexuality, Jensen’s words had shaken him badly.
He said:
“I’ve gotta say that Peter Jensen’s words on Q&A Monday night were very cutting, I was yelling at the TV and was more than impressed to have Catherine in her quiet, direct way, taking him to task. It’s so disheartening to listen to someone like Jensen say he wants to talk about the facts then make an outrageous suggestion that gay people have a shortened life span. And I mean disheartening. It’s been one hell of a week. Religious type people make false claims and then reinforce their own mistakes as if they’re right. The impact on my well-being is quite astounding. I can certainly see how it could have a huge negative impact on a young gay person who may not have built up a life-time of resilience.”
His outrage, he went on, “was further compounded by people [being] so critical of Catherine Deveny. It was distressing to have people saying that she was out of order, but somehow it was acceptable to let Jensen say those things unchallenged.”
The second call I received was from Carol, the mother of a gay teen.
“I can’t tell you how much it meant to Nathan and me to have Catherine Deveny stand up and defend gay people so passionately!” she said.
“As far as I’m concerned, she was incredibly restrained. As the mother of a gay child, and knowing what he’s been through, I wanted to punch Jensen!”
“People – interviewers –” she explained, “let Jensen’s kind of homophobic remarks go through to the keeper all the time. I find it infuriating! Catherine didn’t let it go through to the keeper. That’s the difference between kids committing suicide and not committing suicide and Jensen didn’t even seem to care!”
It is true that Deveny was outspoken in her views on religion. But she didn’t simply launch, uninvited into a rant about the Bible. She spoke only after an audience member specifically asked for her view. In Deveny’s opinion (and, having written and performed in a one-woman stage show on religion, she has done her research), the Bible is, “… basically social engineering embedded in fairytales and horror stories which is just chock full of homophobia, misogyny, discrimination and division.”
You may not agree, but it is her opinion and why shouldn’t she express it? Did anyone object when Jensen launched into a virtual sermon towards the end of the show?
Deveny believes that, despite thousands of different interpretations of the Bible, the only thing they can all agree on is homophobia, misogyny, discrimination and division. That seems pretty accurate given the preoccupations of Jensen and the ACL. Should Deveny have been too polite to point that out? If so, what the hell was she there for?
So why is Deveny being so heavily criticised?
What if Jensen had been spouting racist propaganda? Would it have been deemed appropriate for her to respond to that with a soft voice dripping with demure, feminine reserve? Is it because Jensen was only misogynistic and homophobic that she is being targeted?
Any way you approach it, the outrageous criticism of Deveny only make sense if we understand that her performance was viewed through the filters of cultural, gender and religious bias.
Deveny’s sin is to be an outspoken woman, fearlessly breaking the taboo that says the religious beliefs of others are sacred and should not be publicly attacked. This is a taboo which has kept the religious perpetuation of domestic violence, child rape, child stealing, third-world poverty and the evasion of taxes under the radar for centuries. I think it’s a taboo that has done way more harm than good.
Catherine Deveny did nothing wrong.
She did nothing more than stand up to a passive-aggressive religious bully who consistently abuses his elevated position in society to impose his religious views on others, argue against equal rights for his fellow Australians, support the status quo and disseminate shameful propaganda which does real harm to real people.
I only wish there were more men with balls the size of Catherine’s.
Chrys Stevenson
*(To be fair, my analysis shows Deveny might be said to have interjected twice (as opposed to interrupting). The distinction is that Deveny started speaking after the previous speaker had finished their sentence. She did not speak over them or cut them off mid-sentence. Neither of Deveny’s interjections were to Jensen. Fierravanti-Wells made a similar interjection to Krien.)
** A reader has noted that I wrongly attributed this tweet to @stephjudd. I apologise for the error. I expect I misread a reply from Judd, but I should have been more careful. Steph Judd does not share the view expressed in @BiJayCi’s tweet. Apologies to both Steph Judd and @BiJayCi.
Want to know where the bigots and homophobes are in your local area?
Well, thanks to the efforts of the Australian Christian Lobby, we now have a handy guide. Aren’t those folks at the ACL just peachy?
If you want to know who doesn’t give a flying fuck about high rates of gay youth suicide. If you want to know who fails to support the concept that all Australians should have equal rights. Or, if you just want to know whether making a donation to your local church is likely to result in a national boycott of your organisation [a la Gloria Jean’s Coffee or America’s Chick-Fil-A], look no further!
Here is a list of 19 of Australia’s denominational leaders and 26 other church leaders who have urged the Parliament to protect the Marriage Act so that marriage and all the benefits which flow from it are only available to couples of different genders:
Pastor Wayne Alcorn, National President, AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
The Most Reverend Peter Jensen, Archbishop of the Diocese of Sydney, ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA
Pastor Tim Jack, National Leader, APOSTOLIC CHURCH AUSTRALIA
Pastor David McDonald, National Chairman, CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTRE AUSTRALIA
His Eminence Cardinal George Pell AC, Archbishop of Sydney, CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY
Pastor Mark Connor, Senior Minister, CITYLIFE CHURCH
Reverend Dr Margaret Court, Senior Pastor, VICTORY LIFE CENTRE INCORPORATED
Very Rev Dr Michael Protopopov OAM, Australian & New Zealand Diocese, RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA
Pastor Bill Vasilakis, National Chairman, CRC CHURCHES INTERNATIONAL
The Right Reverend David Jones, Moderator General, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA
His Grace Bishop Suriel, Diocese of Melbourne & Affiliated Regions, COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH
Very Reverend Father Tadros El-Bakhoumi, Diocese of Sydney & Affiliation Regions, COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH
Commissioner James Condon, Territorial Commander, THE SALVATION ARMY EASTERN TERRITORY
Commissioner Raymond Finger, Territorial Commander, THE SALVATION ARMY SOUTHERN TERRITORY
Pastor Ken Vogel, General Secretary, Australian Union Conference, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
Pastor Graham Nelson, Senior Minister, LIFE MINISTRY CENTRE
The Most Reverend Denis Hart, President, AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE
Reverend Keith Jobberns, National Ministries Director, AUSTRALIAN BAPTIST MINISTRIES, BAPTIST UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Church Leaders:
Reverend Father Abram Abdelmalek, Parish Priest, HEAD OF THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH OF WA
Pastor Gloria J Alcock, NORTHERN HIGHLANDS CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CHURCH
Senior Elder Barry K Alcock, NORTHERN HIGHLANDS CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CHURCH
Pastor Andrew Allinson, Associate Pastor, NORTH PINE BAPTIST CHURCH, MURRUMBA DOWNS
Pastor Faamanuia Aloalii, HOSANNA LOGAN CITY CHURCH
Pastor Ruta Aloalii, HOSANNA LOGAN CITY CHURCH
Pastor David Alston, LIVING HOPE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, A FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH
Pastor Craig Anderson, Senior Pastor, PLENTY VALLEY CHURCH
Reverend Matthew Anstey, GOLD COAST CHRISTIAN FAMILY
Pastor Keith Applegate, KENMORE BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Andrew Appleton, LOGAN CITY BAPTIST CHURCH
Reverend Father Matthew Attia, ST GEORGE CHURCH KENSINGTON, NSW
Pastor Ray Baker, CROSSWATER CHURCH
Anne Baker, CROSSWATER CHURCH
Reverend Father Paula Elkomos Balamon, POPE SHENOUDA COPTIC CENTRE, LONG POINT NSW
Reverend Peter Barber, ST ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TOWNSVILLE (PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIAN IN QLD)
Pastor Russell Barker, ROCKY CAPE FAMILY CHURCH, APOSTOLIC CHURCH AUSTRALIA
Pastors John and Jenny Barnes, HOUSE OF THE ROCK CHURCH, GISBORNE
Reverend Father Arsanious Barsoum, THE APOSTLE & ST ABANOUB CHURCH, BLACKTOWN NSW
Reverend Father Youhanna Bastawrous, ST MARY & ST MERCURIOUS CHURCH, RHODES NSW
Reverend Jay Beatty, CHUWAR BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Barry Benz, GATTON CHURCH OF CHRIST
Pastors Brian and Annette Bernays, C3 CHURCH TAMWORTH
Pastor Lorenzo Berry, HERVEY BAY & MARYBOROUGH SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCHES
Reverend Stuart Bonnington, SCOTS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FREMANTLE
Pastors Paul and Trischa Botha, ONE CHURCH PERTH, MERRIWA WA
Reverend Noel Bowditch, Rector, THE ANGLICAN PARISH OF BURNIE
Pastors Mark and Rina Bowhay, CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTRE
Father Anastasios Bozikis, GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF ST GEORGE, BRISBANE
Pastor B.E. Bramblet, FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH QLD
Reverend Andrew J Bray, Immediate Past Moderator PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF VICTORIA & Interim Moderator, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GEELONG
Captain Dale Brooks, Corps Officer, Northside Corps, THE SALVATION ARMY AUSTRALIA EASTERN TERRITORY
Pastors Roger and Linda Brown, MORNING STAR MINISTRIES, QLD
Pastor Philip Brown, PORT CITY CHURCH
Elder Ken Bruce, COC BASSENDEAN
Reverend Tony Burgum, FERNTREE GULLY BAPTIST CHURCH
Reverend Philip Burns, BENDIGO PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Pastor Gordon Busse, CALOUNDRA CITYLIFE BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Cameron Butcher, UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, BALLARAT
Reverend David Butterfield, JIMBOOMBA BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Murray Campbell, Lead Pastor, MENTONE BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Mike Cardy, LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CHURCH, LANCELIN
Pastor Rodney Whitford, WESTERN PORT CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH, TYABB VIC
Pastor Bruce Wilding, WONDAI BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Nathanael Wood, SEAVIEW CHURCH
Pastor Anthony Woodward, CANNON HILL BAPTIST CHURCH
Pastor Martin Woodward, SOUTHERNLIFE CHURCH INC. NSW
David Worboys, Warden, ST. MARTIN’S ANGLICAN CHURCH, NSW
Pastor David Wright, CAIRNS FAMILY CHURCH, CRC CHURCHES INTERNATIONAL
Hank Wurtz, HATERITE (CS: ??? Hutterite, surely!) CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, DETENTION RIVER TAS
Very Reverend Father Bishoy Yassa, ST. MARY & ST. ABU SEFEIN CHURCH, CONCORD NSW
Reverend Father Gabriel Yassa, ARCHANGEL MICHAEL CHURCH, MT. DRUITT NSW
Pastor Li Fang Zhou, CHINESE METHODIST CHURCH IN CANBERRA
These, ladies and gentlemen, are the modern day equivalent of the racist bigots who quoted scripture to oppose civil rights and inter-race marriage during the 1950s and 60s. These are the 21st century equivalent of the clergy who opposed women’s rights and suffrage. These are the equivalents of the nineteenth century men of the cloth who spouted scripture in defence of slavery.
Discrimination has always been easily defended by resorting to scripture and God knows the church has rarely taken the lead in attending to the marginalisation and suffering of minorities.
“From the inauguration of the movement for woman’s emancipation the Bible has been used to hold her in the ‘divinely ordained sphere’ prescribed in the Old and New Testaments.
The canon and civil law; church and state; priests and legislators; all political parties and religious denominations have alike taught that woman was made after man, of man, and for man, an inferior being, subject to man.”
In 1823, Richard Furman, slave holder and leader of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, advised South Carolina’s governor with all the self-righteousness of the signatories above:
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.”
During the fight for Civil Rights, a group of eighty ministers in Arkansas put together a statement similar to that now touted by the ACL. This one, however read:
” … [w]e believe that the best interests of all races are served by segregation …We resent the implication by certain liberal ministers that it is un-Christian to oppose integration. We believe that integration is contrary to the will of God … is based on a false theory of the ‘universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.’ We believe that integration is not only un-Christian, but that it violates all sound sociological principles and is not supported by Scripture or by biological facts.”
Such despicable views and all promoted by exactly the same kind of self-righteous, Bible thumping, jack-asses who are now braying about protecting ‘traditional’ marriage.
Thank God we didn’t listen to the misogynists of the church when it came to women’s liberation.
Thank God we didn’t listen to the racist Bible-bashing bigots who argued against the end of slavery and racial segregation.
What kind of world would we live in today if these narrow-minded numpties had had their way?
And thank God the above list of homophobes and bigots is not representative of the majority of Australians or even the majority of Christians.
Such list-making only serves to preserve for history those who stand in the way of progress, those who oppose equality, those who favour exclusion rather than inclusion, and those who stand for hate instead of love. We have seen it historically, and, here again, we see the same pitiful palaver played out again before our eyes.
Let us hope that lily-livered, weak-kneed, morally bankrupt politicians will not be swayed by this shameful document for there are many wonderful Christians and churches out there who DO support equality and same-sex marriage. Yes! There are many Christians who put compassion and caring above dogma. That (at least according to the Bible) is what Jesus did. Isn’t emulating Jesus supposed to be the whole damn point of Christianity?
Still, I guess the ACL and their homophobic friends have done us all a favour. Until now, it’s been rather difficult to tell who are the ‘good’ Christians and who are the self-righteous, fundamentalist, uncaring bigots. The ACL just made it a lot easier to identify them.
And, as for those caring Christians, they deserve a lot more recognition. Here are some of them:
The Victorian Council of Churches, while not necessarily giving blanket support for same-sex marriage has certainly distanced itself from the obsessive homophobia of the Australian Christian Lobby and their ilk.
In Queensland recently, a new group has been formed to counter the ACL’s regressive policies. Headed by the The Very Reverend Peter Catt, the Dean of St John’s Cathedral, A Progressive Christian Voice (Australia).
Blackwood Uniting Church minister, Leanne Jenski (with her partner, Rev. Susan Wickham) formed the Christians For Gay Marriage lobby group noting, “Be assured there are many Christians out there who stand in solidarity with us.”
Also to be lauded is Christians 4 Equality. Among others, this group includes broadcaster, Exodus Foundation founder and Ashfield Uniting Church minister Bill Crews and Rowland Croucher of John Mark Ministries, one of the most influential Baptists in Australia.
Standing against the ACL’s homophobic position on gay marriage, Crews wrote:
“Today in Australia we all live in a secular non-discriminatory society. Gay couples should be as free to marry as any other human couple. If people wish to be married within a religious or spiritual institution’s framework then they should accept the rites and rules of that institution. However it is the state that legitimises all marriages.”
Similarly, Croucher says:
“How can I, a heterosexual who’s been very happily married for 50 years, tell anyone else they don’t have the right to form a loving, committed, lifelong union and enjoy the fruits of marriage as I have done? Marriage is not a club to be restricted to some – like the Gospel, it is a blessing to be shared.”
Other Christians 4 Equality clergy who have taken an opposite view to the ACL’s view on marriage are Lilydale Baptist Church pastor Matt Glover, Uniting Canberra minister Roger Munson, Fr Dave Smith of Holy Trinity Church at Dulwich Hill, Anglican priest Chris Bedding and Tasmanian Uniting Church minister David Hunnerup.
More clergy who support same sex marriage are listed here as signatories to a letter calling on Australians to show their support for marriage equality by making submissions to the Senate Inquiry and the House Representatives inquiry into same-sex marriage:
The point is this. The ACL’s list is not representative of Australian Christianity – it is representative of Australian bigotry.
* I have highlighted representatives of the Salvation Army in the list above. Readers may care to note that the Salvation Army has a shameful record of homophobia and this list confirms it is still rife in the Australian chapter of the organisation. You may wish to reconsider where you direct your charitable donations.
Local councils and businesses may also wish to make good use of the list above. As Gloria Jean’s Coffee found to its detriment, donating to homophobic hate groups is very, very bad for business. In the case of Gloria Jean’s it resulted in a nationwide boycott, a great deal of very unpleasant media and a harrowing blow to the organisation’s reputation – both with customers and franchisees.
If you’re a local business person or perhaps, sit on a local council, the ACL’s list may just have saved you a great deal of trouble. Next time a church asks if you can donate something for their local fete, fundraising drive, etc, it might be a very good idea to refer to the ACL’s handy neighbourhood guide to bigots and homophobes before risking your company’s or council’s reputation by supporting them.
I can’t claim to be a huge AFL football fan. I can’t even claim to be a football fan. The truth is, I’ve never actually seen a game of football in my entire life and I have absolutely no interest in rectifying that. Football? Bleh!
My friend, Jason Ball, on the other hand, is a keen AFL footballer. Jason’s just started a campaign to encourage the AFL to do a whole lot more about combating homophobia in the sport.
I’ve improved my knowledge of football by around 1000 per cent this afternoon by learning there are around 800 players in the top ranks of the AFL.
Estimates of what percentage of the population are gay or bisexual are all over the place, but a conservative, reasonably well accepted figure seems to be around 5 per cent (although it could well be more). Using this figure, Jeff Kennett, chairman of Beyond Blue, estimates that up to 40 of Australia’s top flight AFL players may well be gay.
Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that gay footballers should be required to make a television commercial to that effect, take out a full page in the Australian or check a pink box on their AFL application form!
While foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe, Bill Muehlenberg, kinkily pictures all gay men wearing pink jack-boots, I’m not for a moment suggesting that gay footballers should be issued with pink footy boots! Not at all!
I absolutely agree that one’s sexuality is no-one else’s business. I’m not calling for a national register of gay players.
But really? Of all these hundreds of high profile footballers (and coaches? team managers?) are there really none who feel comfortable about attending a public event hand in hand with their significant male other?
Are there none who, following a big win, might feel at liberty to say, “And I’d really like to thank my boyfriend for all his incredible support.”
Are there none who, in the course of their numerous interviews might just say, “Actually, I’m gay”?
Apparently not. And I find that really very sad.
I have a confession to make. When I decided to write this blog post to support Jason’s campaign, I felt a wee bit uncomfortable. Actually that’s not true. I felt more than uncomfortable. I felt incredibly awkward writing about – criticising – the AFL when I probably know less about football than Martian geology. But, then I got to thinking, “I don’t know anything about football, but I actually had quite a long sporting ‘career’ myself in the field of competitive horse-riding. I do know something about sport.”
Could I find an analogy? Analogies are good. I like analogies!
I started riding competitively at ten years old, earned my instructor’s certificate at 17 and taught dressage, show-jumping and cross-country at pony club and professionally, until I was 25. Somewhere, buried in the pile of boxes in our garage, are more than 300 fading, moth-eaten felt and satin ribbons and rosettes.
“How lucky,” I thought, “that the equestrian world is so different from the blokey world of football.”
But then, I had something of a revelation. In fact, it struck me like a bolt from the blue.
“Oh.My.God! In the twenty-five years I was involved in the ‘horse’ world, I honestly can’t remember one person who was openly gay. Not one!”
I must have known hundreds of people during that time. Fellow riders, instructors, my own students, judges, parents, farriers, vets, stock food suppliers, tuckshop volunteers, my friends’ families and so on. But as much as I wrack my brain, I cannot remember a single gay person – male or female.
This is impossible, of course. There must have been some; almost certainly there were many. But 25-30 years ago, they were (or at least their sexuality was) completely invisible.
It’s not like I didn’t know what gay ‘was’. During that period I was also heavily involved in the theatre – no avoiding ‘gay’ there! So, why? Why can’t I remember anyone even vaguely associated with my horsey past who was gay?
It’s not like we just turned up at a show, popped over a few jumps and then went home. We socialised! We lived in each others’ pockets! As with any sporting group, we didn’t just talk about our sport. We talked about our hopes, dreams and aspirations. We talked about our crushes – OH so many crushes! We talked about sex. We even snogged with each other from time to time (but strictly boy/girl). (This is a world where ‘a roll in the hay’ is actually a roll in the hay!) We went on camps together. We spent afternoons (after school and, later, after work) riding in the bush. We spent our weekends training or at shows or one day events.
WHERE WERE ALL TEH GAYS???
Looking back, I can only think, with horror, that they were too frightened to ‘come out’. Too frightened of what we’d say. Too frightened that we wouldn’t include them in our silly chit-chat. Too frightened that when it came to picking teams for the Governor’s Cup or the Royal Brisbane Show, they’d be excluded. Too frightened that if we knew they were gay we’d titter about them behind their backs or, worse, call them foul, nasty names. Too frightened, perhaps, that if a judge knew they were gay they might mark them more harshly.
And today, I’m overcome with shame that UNTIL today, IT HAD NEVER EVEN OCCURRED TO ME, that not one of the people I came into contact with during a 15 year sporting career EVER had enough confidence in me to say to me, “Chrys, I’m gay.”
That really makes me feel quite ill.
Of course, that was over 25 years ago. I hope things are better now. I note with some satisfaction that Carl Hester, the gold medal winner in the Olympic dressage this year is openly gay. But I also note that only 23 of the 10,000 Olympians who competed in London in 2012 are ‘out’. That suggests something is very wrong, not just within the AFL sporting culture, but within the sporting world, generally.
So, whether or not you like football, I ask you to support Jason Ball’s campaign to end homophobia in that sport. Please, sign Jason’s petition, join the “I support gay AFL players” and/or “Ending homophobia in the AFL” Facebook groups, and, if you are an AFL supporter, consider dropping a line to the management of the team you support – or even to AFL CEO, Andrew Demetriou – to encourage them to implement Jason’s suggestions:
show the No to Homophobia ad on the big screen at the Grand Final; ,
add it to the footy record;
commit to a Pride Round, just like they have done with the Multicultural and Indigenous Rounds;
and take whatever other action is needed to make AFL a more welcoming place for homosexuals.
More broadly, though, if AFL isn’t your ‘thing’, stop and have a think about your own sport.
How many gay people are ‘out’ in your cricket or netball team, orienteering group, skirmish team, pony club, bowls club, swimming squad, athletics club or similar? Not into sport? What about your craft group, book club, church?
How comfortable would it be for someone to be openly gay in your sporting or leisure-time milieu and what action has been taken to let gay members of your group know that, whatever their sexual preference, it’s not something that will effect their friendships, reputation or perceived value?
Think about it. Perhaps, like me, you’d actually never even given it a thought.
So, yes. The AFL should certainly be doing more to stop homophobia. But really, shouldn’t we all be doing more to end homophobia, everywhere, once and for all?
Chrys Stevenson
Please sign Jason’s petition and share it with your own networks. Let’s make this go viral.
Contact Andrew Demetriou, CEO of the AFL (be polite please!): andrewd@afl.com.au
And if you’re tweeting, use the hashtag #AFLPride – let’s get it trending.
Oh, and if you think there’s NOT a problem in the AFL culture, here’s a (now deleted) tweet from Jason Akermanis about Jason Ball’s campaign:
Over the last few years we’ve become accustomed to the Australian Christian Lobby’s, Jim Wallace, bumbling and stumbling his way from one PR disaster to another. This week, we saw Wallace completely humiliate himself and his organisation when he favourably compared the life expectancy of smokers to that of homosexuals.
Retribution was swift. Wallace’s comments resulted in an avalanche of negative media, a social media storm and the indignant repudiation of his views by fellow Christians. Indeed, the public outrage infiltrated parliament house and reached all the way to the Prime Minister’s office.
Significantly, Prime Minister Gillard condemned Wallace’s remarks as offensive and irresponsible and promptly reneged on her commitment to address the forthcoming Australian Christian Lobby’s National Conference.
”To compare the health effects of smoking cigarettes with the many struggles gay and lesbian Australians endure in contemporary society is heartless and wrong,” said the Prime Minister. ”Although everyone is entitled to their own view, these statements reiterated again today on behalf of ACL are totally unacceptable. In light of this, I believe my attendance at the conference would be inappropriate.”
It was the ultimate rebuke made on a national stage and Wallace brought it all on himself.
Last August, in response to a particularly pitiful performance by Wallace on Seven’s Sunrise program, I wrote on this blog:
“If I was one of the shadowy figures pouring money into the Australian Christian Lobby, I’d be having a long hard think about the way the organisation’s been travelling over the last 12 months and asking myself if it’s time for new leadership: ‘Has Jimbo done what we hired him to do or has he made the organisation a national laughing-stock and damaged the ACL’s reputation beyond repair?'”
In that article, I suggested Wallace was overdue for a performance review, noting that, “… if Jim was brought in to give the ACL a veneer of mainstream respectability, he’s failing badly.” This week he proved me right in spectacular style!
Securing Prime Minister Gillard to speak at the ACL’s forthcoming National Conference was a real coup for the Australian Christian Lobby, but it was a decision for which the Prime Minister received a great deal of flak. Close observers have been warning for some time that the ACL has declined into an obsessive, homophobic hate group but the PM has not been listening. Now she is.
This may well be the beginning of the end for the ACL and it is entirely thanks to Wallace’s mismanagement that they have been brought so shamefully into public disrepute.
Wallace’s latest gaffe was made at the University of Tasmania during a debate about same-sex marriage with Greens leader, Senator Christine Milne. The Melbourne Age reports that during the debate, Wallace said:
“I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that is has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years.”
“The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”
“… But what I’m saying is we need to be aware that the homosexual lifestyle carries these problems and … normalising the lifestyle by the attribution of marriage, for instance, has to be considered in what it does encouraging people into it.”
Understandably, it was immediately suggested by those with an in-depth knowledge of Christian right propaganda, that Wallace’s comments were based on a 1994 ‘study’ by discredited American psychologist, Paul Cameron (et al) in association with Cameron’s anti-gay Family Research Institute – an organisation designated as a gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Cameron’s research on the life expectancy of homosexuals is woefully outdated but, more importantly, his bizarre method of research (counting obituaries in gay newspapers) has been exposed, not only as fundamentally flawed, but downright ridiculous. So compromised is Cameron’s reputation that, while right wing Christian propagandists still quote his data, they rarely cite his name.
So, it was no suprise when, in an interview with ABC News, Wallace refuted this connection, insisting instead that his statement was based on a relatively recent, 2009, human rights complaint to the Canadian government, made by a peak gay activist group in a ‘well-referenced’ submission.
“OK, Mr Wallace,” I thought, ” Let’s take your word for it and take a look at that document.”
Based on the information provided by Wallace in his ABC interview, I tracked down the relevant paper: a submission from Canada’s Rainbow Health Coalition.
It is certainly true that the Rainbow Health Coalition’s submission suggests that the life expectancy of gay men in Canada is significantly shorter than average, although they responsibly concede the difficulties in obtaining accurate data on life expectancy in the gay community. It is also true that the Rainbow Health Coalition mention that gay men may live up to 20 years less than their heterosexual peers.
But, why should I take them at their word? Why should I accept the Rainbow Health Coalition’s data simply because it comes from a group that that supports gay rights? Academic discipline requires that we contest, not only the information which challenges our preconceptions, but that which confirms them; that we interrogate not only information sourced from those we oppose, but also that from those we support. Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing as Jim Wallace discovered this week to his great detriment.
So, I decided to do what Wallace and his ACL researchers should have done; critically examine the life expectancy claim made by the Rainbow Health Coalition in their 2009 submission to the Canadian government.
[NB: I should note that Crikey writer, Andrew Crook, undertook similar research and that our independent investigations yielded similar results. I did not read Andrew’s article prior to writing this but am struck by the similarity of our two analyses.]
“Where does this lifespan ‘estimate’ come from?” I wondered. “And how recent is the statistical data on which this conclusion is based?”
Wallace’s suggestion that the figures date from 2009 is highly misleading. It takes no more than a glancing view of the Rainbow Health Coalition’s submission to determine that the estimate of a significantly shorter life expectancy for gay men is not based on their own research, but is referenced to a 2003 book by Doctors Peterkin and Risdon: Caring for Lesbian and Gay People – A Clinical Guide.
Note the date of publication. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to realise that, if the estimated life expectancy is based on statistical information collected prior to 2003, the data is at least 10 years out of date.
It wasn’t hard to track down the the pertinent chapter from Peterkin and Risdon’s book online. It’s true, they do argue (2003, p. 45) that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years of age, but, again, this is not based on their own research; it is attributed to “(Jalbert, 1999)”. Their bibliography pointed me in the right direction.
As it turns out, “Gay health: Current knowledge and future actions” is a literature review by Québécois academic, Yves Jalbert. As its name suggests, a literature review is not a report on the original research of the author. Rather, it provides an overview of existing academic literature pertaining to a particular area of study. This means, the ‘life span’ estimate could not have originated with Jalbert in 1999, it must have come from an earlier source.
I’ve been unable to obtain a copy of Jalbert’s paper, but my research suggests that his discussion of homosexual life expectancy is almost certainly based on Hogg et al’s 1997 “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men”, a study undertaken in Canada and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1997.
This study examined mortality rates among gay and bisexual males in Vancouver and is easily accessible online (you really should try googling, Jim). Importantly, the authors note that the statistics which form the basis of their conclusions are drawn from the period 1987 to 1992. This means that Wallace’s argument that the contemporary lifespan of gay men is 20 years less than average is based on statistical data collected 20 to 26 years ago – during the height of North America’s HIV/AIDs epidemic!
If Wallace or one of his minions had spent an hour or so checking the Rainbow Coalition’s references, they should have discovered, as both Andrew Crook and I did, that a life span estimate based on statistics collected almost a quarter of a century ago is completely irrelevant in assessing the projecte life expectancy of gay men in 2012. Just a small amount of responsible research may have stopped Jim Wallace from making a monumental ass of himself and Julia Gillard might still be addressing the ACL’s National Conference.
In fact, the contemporary irrelevance of the research has been confirmed by the authors, themselves. Revisiting their 1997 paper on homosexual mortality rates in 2001, Hogg et al wrote:
“Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well-being …
… if we were to repeat [our 1997] analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.
… we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
Isn’t it strange that both Andrew Crook and I should be able to find that piece of readily available information on the internet, but it seems to have completely escaped Jim Wallace and the researchers at the Australian Christian Lobby.
There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth from fundamentalist supporters of the ACL (no, Bill ‘my-book-has-700-references’ Muehlenberg, I won’t link to your grubby little blog) that Wallace is being vilified for simply ‘stating the truth’ about homosexuals. As I (and others) have shown, that is simply untrue. To the contrary, by publicly representing 25 year old data as ‘evidence’ of the contemporary life expectancy of gay men, Wallace has been, at best, professionally negligent and, at worst, intentonally dishonest.
As an peak lobby group*, the Australian Christian Lobby enjoys privileged access to our country’s political leaders. That privilege should surely be contingent on lobbyists adhering to certain ethical and professional responsibilities. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that every effort should be made to ensure that ‘evidence’ presented with a view to influencing public opinion and public policy is accurate, relevant and drawn from credible sources. Indeed, one might particularly expect a Christian organisation to be meticulous in ensuring it does not ‘bear false witness’.
In my view, the Australian Christian Lobby consistently fails to uphold this ethical responsibility. Instead, they peddle propaganda imported from America’s religious right and uncritically rehash it here in Australia. This is irresponsible, unethical, lazy and unprofessional. It is this corporate culture, not ‘teh’ homosexual lobby, which has brought the Australian Christian Lobby unstuck under Jim Wallace’s leadership. Whatever the truth is about the life spans of smokers and homosexuals, it seems certain that Wallace has succeeded in substantially reducing the life expectancy of the Australian Christian Lobby.
The Australian Christian Lobby now stands, publicly disgraced and exposed for the homophobic hate group it has become under Wallace’s leadership. If its financial underwriters will not do the decent thing and dissolve it, the Federal parliament must now take action to distance itself completely from this hateful, divisive and mendacious group of publicly disgraced homophobes.
This is not an argument against freedom of speech. Of course, the Australian Christian Lobby has every right to voice their objectionable opinions and pernicious propaganda in public – I am certainly not arguing that they should be silenced. But, they have abused the privilege of having the ‘ear’ of the Prime Minister, they have negligently misled the Australian public and any privileged access they may have to parliamentarians should be immediately withdrawn.
Neil Francis, CEO of peak voluntary euthanasia body, Your Last Right, has also begun holding the religious propagandists’ feet to the fire on his blog. I recommend you subscribe.
*NB: A former version of this article noted that the ACL is an ‘accredited’ lobby group. I have since realised (having written this in the very wee hours of the morning!) that my memory was faulty on this point. Representatives of the Exclusive Brethren are (were?) registered lobbyists at Parliament House Canberra (sponsored by Rev. Bill Moyes I believe) but I can find no record of the ACL being ‘registered’ and now understand that some organisations do not require registration, so I have to withdraw that comment. I apologise for the error but the principle stands – Wallace and the ACL have abused their close relationship with Canberra politicians and politicians should distance themselves from this group.
Q. “Mr Swan, how much of your maiden speech did you actually believe in?” …
My dear friend, Victorian gay rights activist, Michael Barnett, has written to Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan regarding his opposition to same-sex marriage.
It is a brilliant letter which exposes the hypocrisy of Swan’s stance when measured against the values and ideals he espoused in his maiden speech to parliament.
Mr Swan is yet to respond, but I believe this letter needs to be far more widely circulated.
It is certainly time that we held to public account those politicians whose fine sounding words so rarely match their actions.
Chrys Stevenson
From Michael Barnett, to Wayne Swan:
September 1, 2012
Dear Minister Swan,
Nearly 20 years ago you entered Australian politics. It was on a Monday evening in May 1993 that you delivered your first speech as the elected member of Lilley to the parliament and the people of Australia.
In your opening paragraph you stated:
“… my most important task today is to thank the people of Lilley for their support and trust. My commitment to them is to work hard, to listen to their views and to strongly represent their interests in this place.”
In 2010 News Ltd asked the people of Lilley what they thought of “Same-sex Marriage”. According to the poll 52% were in favour, 32% against and 17% didn’t care. All up a majority were in favour and 69% were not opposed to it.
You claim you will oppose marriage equality when it comes to a vote. In what way are you “strongly representing [the] interests” of the people of Lilley in taking this unrepresentative stance?
In your opening speech you paid fond tribute to your parents and spoke of how they taught you:
“… to have respect for their fellow citizens, and to always help those in need.”
You also spoke of how:
“… they believed in an Australia where every person had the right to a fair go, where ordinary people would be able to fulfil their dreams, regardless of where they came from or the social group they were born into.”
I ask you to consider how you are respecting your fellow citizens when you actively plan to deny an entire section of the Australian population the right to the same level of relationship status as everyone else.
How are people who do not choose an opposite-sex relationship getting a “fair go” when they cannot get married to the person of their choice?
How are we able to fulfil our dreams when we cannot plan and have a beautiful wedding, to which we can invite our friends and family, to declare to the world our love for each other, when you plan to deny us that right, just because of the social group we were born into? Where is the love, Minister Swan?
You spoke of your admiration for the heritage of the Labor movement and of issues important to you:
“In 1978 I went to work for two of the great warriors of the Labor movement—Mick Young and Bill Hayden. With them I received much of my early schooling in politics. They taught me the traditions of the Labor movement, and they taught me the fundamental importance of social justice.”
Tell me Minister Swan how the fundamental important of social justice is playing through when you oppose equality in our society? How is that upholding the principles of the Labor movement?
You spoke extensively on fiscal matters and employment, and said:
“This Parliament must have a decisive role in reshaping Australia, in recharging the economy and in restoring employment.”
As the treasurer of Australia you should understand the benefit $161 million dollars over three years will bring to the economy and to employment by legislating in favour of marriage equality. By upholding the status quo your actions will bleed the economy and the job market of this benefit when New Zealand legislates for marriage equality before Australia. One would not expect the Treasurer of Australia to be financially irresponsible.
Then you spoke of the welfare of children:
“Whatever we do in this place must be aimed at the long term future—the long term future of the nation and the long term future of our children. Policies to achieve that, however, will change over time.”
There is increasing evidence that the welfare of same-sex attracted children suffers when they are told they are not equal in society simply due to the gender of the person they love. Similarly there is growing evidence that children of same-sex couples suffer when the relationships of their parents are deemed to be unequal to those children with married parents.
How does your stance on denying those in loving and committed relationships the right to get married, knowing the negative consequences it has on impressionable children, fit with looking to the future of our children?
Again, you spoke of the proud tradition of the Labor Party, and of its vision:
“The hallmark of the Keating Government is its vision for the future, a vision of Australia as a sophisticated independent trading nation. The hallmark of the Labor tradition is our capacity to think, to develop ideas, and to put them into action in uniquely Australian ways.”
And I ask you, Minister Swan, how is clutching to an out-dated 20th Century value the way to dignify this vision when we are well into the 21st Century? Supporting a value of a by-gone era is not thinking to the future. In fact it’s not thinking at all. In a world where places like our trans-Tasman neighbour, along with the rest of the democratic world, are moving on and adopting marriage equality, you are complicit in holding Australia in a visionless existence.
And lastly, you concluded your first address by declaring:
“The great strength of the Labor Party is its commitment to justice, fairness and dignity. I hope to represent those principles in this House.”
I put it to you, Minister Swan, that by opposing marriage equality, you are not only letting the people of Lilley and the people of Australia down, but sadly, you are letting yourself down, because there is no justice, no fairness and no dignity in denying people equality.
If only …. Michael Barnett and his partner, Gregory Storer pictured at Adam Hill’s in Gordon Street Tonight mass gay wedding. Here are two successful, professional, law-abiding, upright citizens who happen to be in love but, because of politicians like Wayne Swan, are denied the right to marry.
You would think in a government top heavy with evangelical Christians, there might at least be some pretence at following Christ’s message to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
Instead, in the case of Premier Newman et al, the motto seems to be ‘screw unto others‘ – especially in respect to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I received a note from GetUp this week, urging me to write to my local member about the LNP’s refusal to join the rest of the states in funding this important scheme.
I understand from GetUp that Queensland currently spends less on people with disabilities than any other state in the country. That’s pretty disgraceful.
While Premier Newman says Queensland can’t afford an NDIS, that seems to be untrue, given that the Productivity Commission found it will save money by adding significantly to our GDP.
Since taking office, the LNP has withdrawn money from an important, successful and long-standing HIV/AIDS prevention program. It has also removed funding for a Townsville group which taught literacy skills to female, indigenous inmates in Townsville jail with the aim of preventing recidivism. Meanwhile, Newman and his band of happy clappers have happily paid out $80 million to help the already wealthy racing industry and another $1 million to top up funding for the unresearched, unproven, discriminatory and unnecessary National School Chaplaincy Program. The LNP is also happy to spend money on a High Court case they’re almost certain to lose, in an attempt to protect their cash-cow, Clive Palmer’s, profits from the mining tax. But, when it comes to helping disabled Queenslanders, suddenly, there’s no money!
So, I wrote to my local member, Peter Wellington (Nicklin – Independent) saying that I was sure he would support the National Disability Insurance Scheme and if it was any help, he had my support.
Unbeknowns to me, Mr Wellington had already spoken on the NDIS in Parliament and I was delighted to read that we were in agreement on this issue. It made my heart swell to read the words of a politician who actually has the best interests of his electorate, and the people of this state, at heart. All I can say to Campbell Newman and his heartless happy clappers is, if Jesus was half the man his followers believe him to be, he has far more in common with Peter Wellington than any of you. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Here’s Peter Wellington on the NDIS from Hansard:
Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (6.14 pm): I rise to support the motion that Queensland support the proposed trial of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Tonight we can do something, not just pass the baton and blame someone else. We can follow the lead and join other states in trying to take that very first step of improving the lot for people with disabilities around Australia. Just as the member for Gympie said, it is the first step. It is not the last; it is simply the first step.
A number of government speakers have said, ‘We have no money. We can’t afford it.’
The Premier wrote to me some time ago and said, ‘Give me some suggestions.’
Can I say: put the ‘for sale’ signs up in the Mary Valley tomorrow. That would generate income. Stop the ridiculous High Court challenge to the mining resource rent tax.
[Opposition members interjected.]
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! The member with the call is not taking the interjections. I call the member for Nicklin.
Mr WELLINGTON: Another government speaker said, ‘Take the money from Nicklin.’
Well, the government has. It has stopped the funding of the disability access improvements for the Nambour Railway Station. Shame on the government! It was planned and justified, but what did the government say?
‘Sorry. We will consider it in the future.’
So they have taken funding from the electorate of Nicklin.
I say to the Premier and his government, who say there is no money: put the ‘for sale’ signs up in the
Mary Valley tomorrow so we can have the trial in Gympie. It is very simple.
[Mr Gibson interjected.]
Mr WELLINGTON: I am not taking interjections from government members. Put the ‘for sale’ signs up tomorrow, stop the ridiculous banter to the High Court in relation to federal government’s proposed mining resource rent tax. That would represent another significant saving. I look forward to the opposition members continuing with the debate.
———–
A brilliant speech from Peter Wellington but, sadly, Mr Newman and his gang are simply not listening. Drunk with power, they don’t care one jot about the people of this state – especially those who are different or disadvantaged.
On Sundays these happy clapping pollies rock up to their churches, raise their hands in the air, sway to Christian music and delude themselves that they are God’s chosen people – that they are the ones standing on the moral high ground. Oh, the self-satisfied Sunday smirks as they shake hands with the pastor and bask in the warmth of their own importance.
But the rest of us can clearly see them for what they are – they are the kinds of people that Jesus despised. They are the kinds of people from whom Jesus wanted to wrest power. They are the scribes and the pharisees. They are the people who care more for themselves, their status and their power than the plight of the poor, the sick, the disabled and the marginalised.
In a brilliant, insightful article on Online Opinion today, Meg Wallace explains the depths to which the Gillard government has stooped in its efforts to keep funding the National School Chaplaincy Program. It’s a story of how the Gillard government has thumbed its nose at the Australian Constitution and the High Court of Australia, abandoned the principle of parliamentary democracy, sold out public accountability and even manoeuvered to exempt its Ministers from prosecution when it became apparent they had very possibly broken the law. It’s all very, very grubby.
Please share the link to this article with your own networks (click the Facebook ‘like’ or Twitter links on the article). The more people who understand exactly what the government has done in order to pander to the religious right the better.
One really has to ask what back-room deals have been done to make the government sell out the very basis of our parliamentary democracy in order to put poorly qualified, evangelical, religious zealots into our secular state schools.
But this issue extends beyond government support for religious evangelising. It opens the floodgates for government pork-barreling. If the new amendment to the Finance Act stands, governments can commit tax payers’ money to a whole range of vote-buying programs, without legislation and without proper public accountability. They have organized for themselves a huge government pork-barreling slush fund.
It’s important to note (as the Commonwealth Ombudsman has pointed out) that executive schemes (financed without appropriate legislation) are not reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) and the merits of decisions made under this type of scheme are not reviewable by generalist or specialist tribunals. In other words, as it stands, the government can spend money without legislation and avoid accountability to the watchdogs set up to monitor government schemes. It is truly outrageous.
Ron Williams will be taking this matter back to the High Court of Australia, and it seems likely that the High Court justices will take a very dim view of the government trying to circumvent the Constitution and a High Court ruling by rushing through slip-shod, undemocratic legislation. For some opinions from constitutional experts, have a look at the links on the High Court Challenge website.
Once again, Williams will be risking his family’s financial future to fight for our rights in the High Court of Australia. It’s been estimated the cost of this second action will be around $400,000. Whether or not you support school chaplaincy, you should be appalled at the cynical way our government has dealt with this issue.
I’ve donated $200, another friend has chipped in $1,000, but even smaller amounts will help if enough people donate.
This is a chance to be a part of constitutional history, and $50 or $100 is a very small price to pay to say to the government that ‘we the people’ demand they respect the rulings of the High Court of Australia and the Australian Constitution and the principle of parliamentary democracy.
Here is a fascinating insight into what is really taught in Scripture (SRE / RI classes) in Australian state schools. Joel Pittman, a former evangelical youth pastor explains how evangelicals have colonised this area, how they frighten your children into giving their lives to Christ and then encourage them to attend youth camps where they can be further indoctrinated.
We have known this is going on for years, but it’s absolutely fascinating to hear Joel talk about it so casually. Joel insists that the way he conducted Scripture classes is typical. This is borne out by an account from a friend of mine. She told me recently that her son – opted out of Scripture but made to sit outside the classroom – heard a friend ask the Scripture teacher if his parents would go to hell because they were divorced. The teacher answered bluntly, “Yes, they would,” and proceeded with a lecture about how ‘these people’ make a covenant under God and then are too lazy to make their marriage work. The child was in tears and my friends son was so horrified he came home and told her what he’d heard.
The video was taken at Skepticamp Sydney.
It’s interesting that someone notes that Scripture classes when WE were young were pretty benign. Joel notes that most of the money comes from the evangelical churches which are ‘cashed up’.
“You’ve got, like, churches groups like Hillsong that are taking $80-$90 million a year and are sending thousands of these people out …” says Joel.
The curriculum, says Joel is decided by the Scripture Board. But, while other moderate churches were involved, “They didn’t have the money – and whoever has the money, makes the rules,” he says.
You may also like to consider donating towards the legal fees for a second High Court Challenge against federal funding for the National School Chaplaincy program. An explanation of why another challenge is necessary, and some opinions from constitutional experts are linked to on the High Court Challenge website at http://www.highcourtchallenge.com . The chaplaincy challenge is being undertaken, once again, by Ron Williams who is risking his family’s financial future by taking this on. It’s estimated that the cost of this second challenge will approach $400,000. It’s a staggering sum, but even small contributions are useful if enough people chip in. Details of how to donate are in the right hand side bar at the High Court Challenge website.
Today is Wednesday, 18 July. We have one day to act on this.
On July 21st, Deakin University, Google+, Fairfax and OurSay are hosting an Australian first: Prime Minister Julia Gillard will answer questions from the public in a “Google Hangout”, an internationally live web broadcast.
David Nicholls from the Atheist Foundation of Australia has posted a question for the PM on her government’s continued support for the National School Chaplaincy Program.
“Dear Prime Minister. Against the strongly expressed concerns of mental health professionals, teacher unions and secular organisations, why do you allow the outrageous situation to continue where largely unqualified, religious evangelists have access to young children in public schools, in the form of the National School Chaplaincy Program? ”
The three people who ask the most popular questions will join Prime Minister Julia Gillard for a Hangout moderated by Fairfax political reporter Misha Schubert.
Currently, the NSCP question is ranked number four and we urgently need more votes to bring it up into the top three.
Each voter gets 7 votes which you can allocate as you wish. You can vote 7 times for the same question if you want – and I hope you’ll do that!
You also have the opportunity to post a comment about the NSCP and your objections to it.
It is a bit of a palaver if you’re not already registered with Our Say, but please take the time to register and vote. This is an excellent opportunity to show the PM the high level of public outrage over the chaplaincy program.
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 