“If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse.” – Lawrence M Krauss
Professor Lawrence M Krauss is appearing on Q&A next Monday along with Tanya Plibersek, Greg Hunt, and Dr John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity.
One of Krauss’s pet topics is the idiocy of teaching creationism in the science classroom. In fact, he has equated it to child abuse.
I have it on good authority that Professor Krauss is aware of some of the problems we are facing here in Australia and it would be brilliant if we could get him to speak about it during Monday night’s Q&A.
So, can you please submit questions on this subject to Q&A. Please, take a moment, go to this link and ask a question about the growing problem of creationism being taught in Australian schools or, more broadly, about the intrusion of religion generally into our public school system. If you like, you can even send in a video question.
Need inspiration? You might find these links helpful.
I tend to spend a lot of my time slamming religious extremists and bigots on this blog. But, I believe that credit is due to those Christian organisations which take a more enlightened view. In light of the current debate about exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, it’s important to note that the view of extremist ‘stakeholders’ like Jim Wallace’s Australian Christian Lobby do not represent the ‘mainstream’ Christian view. Why does our Prime Minister and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon not take note of this? This is the burning question!
So, congratulations to UnitingJustice Australia, the justice unit of the National Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia. Their submission to the senate standing committee’s inquiry into the human rights and anti-discrimination bill, 2012, clearly states their (qualified) opposition to religious exemptions.
It is, in my view, a sensible and well thought out argument which puts the so-called ‘Christian ethics’ of the ACL to shame.
Here is the section that deals with exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, submitted in December 2012:
That the sections governing religious exceptions be amended to remove those protected attributes that are not demonstrably justified by religious needs.
UnitingJustice is deeply concerned that the wide ranging list of protected attributes to which an exception applies for religious organisations serves only to perpetuate the potential for discrimination both by and within religious organisations and institutions.
While we believe that the right to freedom of religion is of vital importance, and its recognition necessary, we do not believe that this is an absolute right. We acknowledge, then, that the exercise of religious freedom is subject to the regulatory norms that govern Australian society. Importantly, we support the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights statement that discussions in this area must consider whether an exemption is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”
We believe that religious organisations require an exemption in relation to the ordination or appointment of their religious leaders. The act of ordination is core to the integrity of a religious community and we believe it is appropriate that religious organisations are given the freedom to appoint their leaders in keeping with their religious traditions and beliefs.
We are concerned, however, with section 33 of the Anti-Discrimination Bill, and feel that it gives too wide an exemption to the activities of religious organisations and institutions. We do not believe that it is necessary, in light of the need to balance the rights of the wider community with the freedoms to be afforded to religious groups, to grant an exception to that permits discrimination when that discrimination consists of conduct, engaged in good faith, that:
(i) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion; or
(ii) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion.
When religious bodies are provided to what amounts to a ‘blanket exception’, there is no incentive for that body to ensure that it does not discriminate, and no incentive to promote equality and inclusion in areas of employment and representation other than those leadership positions necessary to maintain the integrity of the religious organisation.
While we acknowledge “the need for some level of exemption, to allow faith-based organisations to maintain their integrity according to the tenets of the relevant communities” faiths, references in the Anti-Discrimination Bill to concepts such as “doctrine”, “tenets of that religion” and “injury to religious sensitivities” are, in many cases, unhelpful. This language is contested even within religious communities themselves, and so to require participants in court proceedings to present and decide on a definitive definition of any of these terms is problematic.
In its submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project, the Uniting Church National Assembly stated our support for federal legislation prohibiting religious discrimination, including a specific provision which allowed for discrimination on the basis of religion by faith communities in the area of employment in leadership and teaching positions, where it is reasonably necessary for maintaining the integrity of the religious organisation.
Several of the protected attributes listed under sections 32 and 33 disproportionately impact women, including pregnancy, potential pregnancy, breastfeeding and family responsibilities. There are no justifiable grounds for the inclusion of such attributes.
Indeed, they serve only to act as a proxy of sorts for enabling discrimination on the grounds of gender. For this reason, we do not support the wide-ranging list of exceptions granted to religious organisations and institutions under the proposed legislation.”
Well, Prime Minister, Ms Roxon? Why does the ACL’s view trump this one? Please explain …
Please use GetUp! to contact Nicola Roxon and your local political representative about this matter. And please spread GetUp’s link among your own networks.
Congratulations and thanks also to Joumanah El Matra, Executive Director of The Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights. El Matra has also opposed the legislation exemptions – Shutting out the ‘sinners’ feeds bigotry – The Age, 18/1/13
The ALP’s appalling capitulation to religious bigots has been roundly criticised this week. Despite overhauling Australia’s federal anti-discrimination legislation, the ALP has apparently done a deal with the devil Australian Christian Lobby, assuring them that exemptions to anti-discrimination laws will remain in place for religious organisations.
The Prime Minister has assured religious extremists they will still have the freedom to target fellow Australians who offend their religious ‘sensibilities’ – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, unmarried mothers and people living in defacto relationships to name just a few of the ‘sinners’ the ‘religious’ would prefer not to employ.
Voters should be particularly interested in Senator Doug Cameron’s admission that this cozy little deal was made arbitrarily; the matter, he says, was not discussed in caucus.
Of course, this little victory has made the ACL’s managing director, Jim Wallace, a right happy little Vegemite. Although, curiously, while lauding the government for preserving bigots’ ‘religious freedom’ to flout the laws which every other Australian has to follow, Mr Wallace says it’s ‘not a big issue’. Indeed, Mr Wallace insists that, as far as he’s aware, there are no religious institutions which actually practice the discrimination they’ve so vociferously demanded. WTF???
Yep. “We lobbied for a right to discriminate, but don’t get your knickers in a knot, because no-one’s going to do it.”
Really? Really? This from the monster man who cheerfully agreed in February last year that church schools should have the right to expel students for no reason other than being ‘openly gay’.
In an interview on ABC News yesterday, a disingenuous Mr Wallace said:
“I’m not aware of any Christian organisation that has refused to hire anyone (based on their sexuality), and I’ve looked. I’m not aware of any school that has expelled anyone… for homosexuality. So, I think this is a beat-up in that it’s a problem that doesn’t exist.”
If the problem doesn’t exist, Mr Wallace – if religious institutions have no interest in discriminating against their fellow Australians – why did you lobby for them to maintain the right to do so? Have you any idea how badly this is playing with the general public? This is Australia, Mr Wallace, land of the ‘fair go’ – not land of the ‘one law for everyone – except religious institutions’. This is a secular democracy Mr Wallace – despite your burning ambition to turn it into your own personal theocracy.
And, might I ask, exactly where and how hard did you look for victims of religious bigotry?
As one of my Facebook contacts observed:
“By “looked”, perhaps Wallace means that he stood alone in a dark room and squinted, which is precisely how the ACL seems to do much of its strategising and policy development.”
Another hastened to clarify:
“No … the man’s eye’s were firmly closed and he placed a bag over his head just to make sure he couldn’t see.”
Well, Mr Wallace, the time has come to put your manhood where your mouth is. You reckon you’ve gone searching for victims of religious bigotry and have found none? Seems you’ve just been asking the wrong people.
Today, veteran gay rights campaigner, Rodney Croome, of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, issued a media release stating that he would be happy to arrange a meeting between Mr Wallace and ‘some of the thousands of employees and students’ who, Croome says, have been discriminated against by religious organisations.
“I invite Mr Wallace to meet GLBTI employees who have been sacked from church welfare agencies and GLBTI students who have been expelled from church schools,” said Croome.
“I want him to look them in the eye and tell them why their contribution and their rights matter less than other people’s.”
Well, there you go, Mr Wallace. You say you’ve been looking for victims of religious discrimination and couldn’t find any. Mr Croome has kindly found what you were looking for. The question is, are you honest enough, man enough, Christian enough, to take Mr Croome up on his offer? Man up and accept the offer, Jim – or people will take you for a dick.
Please use GetUp! to contact Nicola Roxon and your local political representative about this matter. And please spread GetUp’s link among your own networks.
The final date for submissions is drawing close and Professor Arcaro has informed me the response from Australia and New Zealand has been so good we will be able to proceed with our plan to co-author a paper on the results.
If you are an atheist or agnostic and have not already completed this survey, I would greatly appreciate your input. Depending on how many comments you wish to make, it will take between 10 and 20 minutes of your time.
If there are questions you don’t like or if you wish to clarify your answers you can do so in the spaces provided. I guarantee I will be taking comments into account during the analysis.
I envisage that the final article will compare both Australian and New Zealand results and Australia/NZ with the USA and the rest of the world.
It’s an exciting project and the more input we can get from this part of the world, the more accurate the results will be.
Please complete the survey if you have not done so already and please circulate the URL to your networks: www.surveymonkey.com/s/HDJ5C6L
I’m not a big sports fan. I’d be hard pressed to name Australia’s top 10 sports people – male or female. I am, however, a very big fan of fairness, a commitment to equality, professionalism and good judgment – all qualities sorely lacking in the two bozos from the Daily Telegraphwho thought it was oh so funny to name cricketer, Michael Clarke, Sportsman of the Year and Black Caviar – a racehorse – Sportswoman of the Year.
Phil Rothfield and Darren Hadland are the two sexist oafs who conceived of the idea but one also has to ask, “Where were the gatekeepers?” Did no-one at the Daily Telegraph read this piece of neanderthal nonsense and think, “Hmmm, maybe that’s a really bad idea?”
In my recent article for the King’s Tribune I reveal that women are extremely poorly represented on the front pages of Australia’s leading newspapers. Drawing on research by media expert, Dr Louise North, of Monash University, I suggest that the blokey culture of Australian (and international) news rooms is a major obstacle to female journalists’ professional success. In turn, the lack of senior female reporters and editors means that newspaper reporting is often skewed to favour masculine perspectives – and not always in a good way.
The Daily Telegraph was one of the newspapers I studied over 10 business days. The results weren’t good. In 10 weekday issues of the Tele not one front page story was written by a female journalist. Further, seventy-eight per cent of the Daily Telegraph’s front page stories focused on male protagonists. On my ‘blokeyness index’ which took into account six key categories:
The Sydney Morning Herald achieved the highest score for ‘blokeyness’ with an average ‘male representation’ score of 82 per cent based on the six key indicators (see table). But it was a close race, with the Daily Telegraph scoring a whopping 80 per cent on the blokeyness barometer.
It’s very hard not to see this latest stunt as a symptom of the Tele’s blokey culture and apparent lack of female gatekeepers.
In an interview with the Women’s Weekly in July, Telegraph editor,Paul Whittaker, insisted that his paper was not failing its women readers. I’m sorry, Mr Whittaker but I beg to differ.
The idea that it’s okay to name a horse as Sportswoman of the Year is a prime example of a masculine perspective which is completely out of touch with contemporary values. It is particularly irksome considering the high profile public debate we have recently had about misogyny. Frankly, it is so gobsmackingly stupid it’s almost hard to believe.
And you don’t have to be a militant, hairy arm-pitted, bra-burning feminist to be offended by this schoolboy stunt. I mentioned it to two delightful 88 year old ladies this afternoon. They gasped in disbelief when I told them the story and, when I assured them it was true, they launched into a spirited tirade which included the words ‘outrageous’, ‘demeaning’ and ‘disgusting’. One of the octogenarians, my mother, shook her head and said, “The bastards!”
With newspaper readership on the wane, newspapers are increasingly aware that they need to capture the female demographic. This is not the way to do it, Mr Whittaker. The Daily Telegraph was the second worst of the eight newspapers I studied for my King’s Tribune article – all of which scored badly on the ‘blokeyness index’. Naming a horse as Sportswoman of the Year takes your newspaper to a new nadir.
In my view, the two ‘so-called’ journalists who conceived of this drivel should be stood down and so should the editors who let it go to print. Here’s a novel idea – why not fill the vacancies with women?
My friend, Dr Tom Arcaro is a Professor of Sociology at Elon University in North Carolina. In 2010 Tom did a fascinating sociological survey on the stigmatisation of atheists. Now he is conducting a new survey which touches on stigmatisation, but which also focuses on non-believers’ participation in, and attitudes about, our local, national and international atheist organisations.
Tom plans to publish at least one paper as a result of this research and, if there is sufficient response from Australia, he has invited me to co-author a piece based on the Australian results.
The survey will take around 30 minutes and, if you don’t like or agree with any of the questions, there is room to say why (I always like that in a survey).
Last time, we received 300 responses from Australia and it would be great to better that in 2012-2013.
So, please consider completing the survey and share it with your own networks.
I’m not big on Christmas presents, but today I got an unexpected Christmas bonus that really touched my heart. What’s more, I don’t have to worry about whether it fits the colour scheme, or whether I’ve got the cupboard space to store it.
Considering this blog began as an extremely modest effort to direct web traffic to the (then fledgling) Embiggen Books website, I have been thrilled and somewhat amazed at its growth over the past couple of years, and especially during 2012.
Clementine’s accolade is the icing on my Christmas cake and comes at a time when I definitely needed a little boost.
So, many thanks to Clem and to all of you who’ve discovered this little corner of the blogosphere, for your readership, friendship, comments, insight, encouragement, support, and compliments during the year. And yes, thanks, too for the brickbats which made me think, or pound my head against the keyboard, but much more often made me laugh.
It’s been a blast and I look forward to continuing to Destroy the Joint when I’m back on deck in 2013.
My Dad swore that, at the very moment I emerged from the womb, I opened my mouth and howled, “IT’S. NOT. FAIR!!!!!!”
At some point during my childhood, my overdeveloped sense of justice became so irritating to my parents that, “IT’S. NOT. FAIR!!!!!” went on the banned list of phrases – along with, “BUT. I. WANT. A. PONY!!!!!!”
I don’t think I’m a particularly effective feminist – Leslie Cannold and her ilk put me to shame – but I still have a very strong adverse reaction to things that aren’t fair.
I didn’t think it was fair when Catherine Deveny was attacked for ‘taking over’ Q and A recently. Fortunately, the transcript backed me up and I was able to show that Deveny did not dominate the show, nor did she interrupt more than her nemesis, Archbishop Peter Jensen.
Analysing the transcript of Q and A is a tedious and laborious job and I swore I wouldn’t do it again. But, when Kate Ellis faced a pack of slavering chauvinist wolves on a subsequent episode, I pulled another all night stint to expose the injustice.
On the strength of those two blog posts, I was recently invited to undertake a project for the King’s Tribune, an independent magazine which focuses on politics, media and pop culture. I should have been thrilled and honoured – and I was. But, my first inclination was to say “thanks, but no thanks”.
The thing is, I knew how much work the two Q and A projects involved. What Jane Gilmore, the editor of the King’s Tribunewas suggesting was on a far greater scale altogether. It was a fascinating project but, as I replied frankly to Jane, as a struggling writer, I just couldn’t agree to commit the amount of time needed for the project without getting paid.
It’s come down to this. I just can’t go on spending hundreds of hours researching and writing while I pay our handyman/gardener $30 an hour to do things I could be doing myself if I wasn’t spending so much time on the computer! At some point you realise, you’re not just writing for nothing – it’s costing you to write for nothing! Costing a lot!
It’s particularly annoying when you know some people who are putting out online journals are making a living out of it, but the writers who supply the content often get nothing – not even a token fee.
There are very few online journals that pay writers – and those that do, pay much less than you might expect. And that’s a shame because, while people like me are often happy to clack out a couple of thousand words every so often on things we feel strongly about, ultimately, writers have bills to pay too!
I have to admit that I didn’t know a lot about the King’s Tribunewhen Jane approached me. My friends Shelley Stocken, Jo Thornely, Mike Stuchbery and Ben Pobjie are regular contributors so I knew it was a quality magazine, but I hadn’t been nosey enough to ask them if they were paid for their articles.
So, when Jane emailed back to confirm that “Yes” the King’s Tribune pays writers and would pay me for my time, I was surprised, and thrilled, and, even though the fee offered wasn’t astronomical, it was something and I appreciated the goodwill and respect that signified. In short, it was FAIR.
‘The project’ Jane had in mind was inspired by a newspaper article, “Why is British Public Life Dominated by Men?” , by Kira Cochrane from the Guardian newspaper and subsequent research undertaken by UK advocacy group – Women in Journalism. Both Cochrane’s original research and the follow-up WiJ study found that women are extremely poorly represented – both as journalists and as news subjects – in the British media. Similar international and US studies reached similar conclusions; women journalists, and women in general, simply weren’t being treated fairly or equally in the media.
But what about here, in Australia? Is our media the exception or the rule? In a country led by a female prime minister and a female governor general – a country in which Michelle Grattan is a household name – surely the media is more enlightened than the British tabloids and their infamous ‘page three’ girls?
The project took a month – pretty much full time – to research and write. It’s the kind of project that probably wouldn’t have been done if someone hadn’t been willing to pay for it. The King’s Tribune was. And, this is my (and their) point:
If we want good writers to undertake serious, time-consuming projects like this, then we have to value their work and pay them. For independent publishers – the only way to pay writers is either to take advertising (which may compromise their independence) or to charge readers for access.
All of which is a long winded way of making two important statements.
The first is that my first (and hopefully not my last) article for the King’s Tribune, “The Blokeyness Index: blokes win the gender war in Australia’s 4th Estate” is the lead story in the King’s Tribune December issue; available both online and in printed form. But, to read the whole article you will need to subscribe ($5 for a single month’s subscription) or order a printed copy of the magazine to be mailed to you ($8.95). That means you won’t just get my article, but all the other great articles in the December edition of the magazine.
The second point is, that in order to continue paying good Australian writers, the King’s Tribune needs more than just subscribers for this one edition. They could really do with your ongoing support. So, if you can manage it – either before or after you get your hands on the December edition – please consider taking out a one year, six month or three month subscription. If you have friends or relatives who value good quality writing on topical subjects – think about a gift subscription. And, if you have had a particularly good year and you’re feeling all welled up with Christmas spirit and goodwill towards us starving scribes – perhaps you might consider making a ‘one off’ contribution to help the King’s Tribune stay afloat.
Here’s editor, Jane Gilmore, talking about the history of the magazine and why you should think about supporting it.
“… ultimately it’s the readers who need to know that the service they are getting is valuable. Ten or more years of free content online has inculcated everyone with the idea that good writing is a valueless service. It’s not. But paying writers what they are worth is not going to happen until that ingrained attitude changes.
Finding good writers is far more difficult than you would imagine. Finding good writers who are an incentive to paying customers is even more difficult. But the solution to this is not just up to publishers. Everyone has to join the dance.”
You can read the introduction to “The Blokeyness Index” here. But, to read the whole thing, you’ll need to subscribe – either to just the December issue ($5) or in one of the ways listed on the link above. Please consider subscribing (either short-term or long-term) in order to read the full article and, if you enjoy it, encourage your friends to do the same.
Yes, they’ll have to pay a small fee but, come on, isn’t that only FAIR?
Pedophile priest, Father Risdale, who is said to have abused hundreds of children, walked to the Melbourne Magistrates Court with his support person, Bishop Pell – Source: Broken Rites
12 November 2012 – 5.30pm: Breaking news. Prime Minister Gillard announced, this afternoon, that the government has agreed to a royal commission into institutional responses to allegations of child sex abuse in Australia – The Australian
Everyone I know agrees we need a national (not state) Royal Commission into child sex abuse – AKA child rape – in the Catholic Church and other religious institutions.
There are now several petitions floating around the internet, but I’m very pleased and proud to be one of eight well-known Australians to launch the petition below.
At the invitation of Catherine Deveny, social commentator, comedian and celebrity, I’ve joined with:
Jane Caro, social commentator, media personality and education expert
Michael Short, editor at The Zone and editorial writer for the Age
Father Bob Maguire
High profile PR consultant and corporate strategist, Sue Cato
Andrew Knight, writer of shows such as Sea Change, Fast Forward and Rake (and multi-award winner)
Josh Bornstein, principal in charge of employment and industrial law practice at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
and Catherine Deveny
to launch this petition today.
That’s a pretty high powered group with amazing contact networks. And you can be sure this is only the beginning of the lobbying process. A major media release will also be issued later today.
Lawyers worked through the weekend to establish there is no constitutional law impeding the government from calling its own national Royal Commission into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and other religious institutions.
THIS is the petition that needs to go viral in the same way the Alan Jones petition went viral.
Will you help? Blog it, Facebook it, Tweet it, talk about it to your friends and work mates. We have the power and this time, we have some really very big names behind us.
OK, I know that most of my readers don’t live in Gladstone. But you all have contact networks and among those networks there must surely be some people in Gladstone, or people with friends in Gladstone who would love to know there’s a Marriage Equality Rally planned for next Saturday, 17 November. So please, blog, Facebook, Twitter and spread the word!
The rally is being organised by the incredibly talented and rather gorgeous Dylan Carmichael. He’s put such an enormous amount of effort and passion into organising this event, that it really deserves a huge social media push over the next week. I really hope you’ll all get involved.
Gladstone may be a small town, but I can’t believe there’s not enough gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers, transgender and intersex people to show Gladstone what it is to be out and proud; not to mention a whole slew of we boring but supportive straights!
Let’s get that rainbow network working overtime so that, on Saturday, Dylan’s not left looking like he’s the only gay in the village!
Here’s the amazing promotional poster courtesy of Faye Ktajjar of Squid Ink Designs.
And while we’re on the subject of Marriage Equality rallies. If you want just the right thing to wear to your next one, Dylan has the solution for you! For the latest thing in Gay Rally political couture here’s Dylan’s t-shirt design which exposes, for the first time, that sinister ‘gay agenda’! It’s available on Red Bubble as a t-shirt, hoodie or sticker:
Please spread the word about the Gladstone Marriage Equality Rally to be held next Saturday, 17 November. The rally will begin in Apex Park, Gladstone at 1pm. There will be a short march around the CBD followed by a reception at Scottie’s Restaurant. The Facebook page is here if you want to link to it.
Remember, you may not know anyone in Gladstone, but the ‘pebble in a pond’ effect is powerful.
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 