There’s something about Gloria Jeans Coffee that leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth – and it’s not just the overheated, tastes-like-dishwater brew in the cheap paper cup.

Whether its franchisees, staff or customers know it or not, profits from this franchise are put to some pretty objectionable uses.

$30,000 donation to Australian Christian Lobby

Recently, thanks to the investigative efforts of Doug Pollard from community radio Joy 94.9FM, it’s been revealed that Gloria Jeans contributed $30,000 to the Australian Christian Lobby in 2010. That figure is only public because it is classified as ‘for political expenditure’ and exceeds $11,500. We simply don’t know how much Gloria Jeans may have contributed financially to the ACL under other headings.

Homophobia

Why is this important? Because the Australian Christian Lobby is Australia’s leading anti-gay lobby. Don’t be fooled by the moniker ‘Christian’. They spend very little time feeding the poor, housing the homeless or arguing for a more fair and just society. In fact, another JoyFM volunteer, Jacob Holman, recently took stock of the ACL’s activities and found their obsession with homosexuality and same-sex marriage sticks out like – well – like an enormously large erect penis. Just check out the graph! It’s easy to see what gets those good ol’ boys at the ACL excited!

That should concern every Australian who is gay, or who has gay friends or relatives. In fact, it should concern all Australians who believe this is a country in which every citizen should be treated equally.

The Australian Christian Lobby does not support equality. It supports an ‘us’ and ‘them’ policy when it comes to our gay population. In fact, it even supports discrimination against gay teens.

ACL endorses expelling gay teens

In 2011, Jim Wallace, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby endorsed a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

To be fair, Wallace said clarified his endorsement by saying:

“But I would expect any church that found itself in that situation to do [expel the gay child] that in the most loving way that it could for the child and to reduce absolutely any negative affects.”

Hmmm, I wonder how you say lovingly: “Well, Jason, you’re gay and you refuse to hide it, so, kiddo, you’re out on your ear – we don’t want ‘your sort’ around here contaminating all the nice, heterosexual kiddies.”

I wonder how you deliver that message without ‘absolutely any negative effects’.

The thing is you can’t. Which is why that kind of message, endorsed by the Australian Christian Lobby, prompts gay teens to commit suicide in far greater numbers than their heterosexual peers.* Support the Australian Christian Lobby in any way and you are inadvertently supporting the social climate that leads to gay teen suicides.

And these are the views being financed by Gloria Jeans Coffee.

Sexual abuse by clergy? Gays are to blame, says Wallace

When it comes to the sexual abuse of children by clergy, Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby is quick to assign blame. Only he doesn’t blame the churches which have enabled abuse, covered it up, and done their darndest not to take responsibility. No. Jim blames homosexuals for infiltrating churches in order to prey on vulnerable children. Completely ignoring all the academic studies which show there is no link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, Wallace continues to disseminate that vile lie and paint the church as the ‘victim’. *

Offending Muslims, homosexuals and diggers

But Wallace doesn’t stop at offending homosexuals. On ANZAC day 2011, he tweeted with an appalling lack of sensitivity for either his targets or Australian diggers:

“Just hope that as we remember Servicemen and women today we remember the Australia they fought for – wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic!”

Nazi slur

This week, while debating a gay, Jewish woman (Dr Kerryn Phelps) in front of a man with a Jewish surname (Sunrise on Seven host, David Koch), Wallace accused Seven, Sunrise and the ‘homosexual lobby’ of acting like Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist renowned for ‘creating an atmosphere in Germany that made it possible for the Nazis to commit terrible atrocities against Jews, homosexuals and other minorities.’

The slur was astounding in its insensitivity, casting Jewish Phelps in the role of ‘Nazi’ and Wallace in the role of ‘victim’.

LGBT Jewish group, Aleph, responded with incredible dignity and restraint:

“Tens of thousands of homosexual men were murdered under the hand of Joseph Goebbels, alongside many millions of Jews and people from a variety of national identities and religious beliefs. To be compared to this person, in the pursuit of equality and human rights is unconscionable. It beggars belief that an individual with a respected career in the Australian Defence Force is incapable of comprehending the gravity and insensitivity of the words he uttered on national television.”

Please consider, if you’re Muslim, Jewish, gay or a member of (or descended from a member of) the Australian military who fought to defend equality in this country, drinking your coffee at Gloria Jeans may well mean you are financially supporting the Australian Christian Lobby.

Financial support to Salvation Army

If your particular concern is not to finance homophobic organisations, there’s another good reason to steer clear of Gloria Jeans. Apparently they also donate to the Salvation Army. Now, while the Sallys, at least, do some useful, practical work in the community, their attitude towards homosexuality is not good as my friend Michael Barnett explains. According to the Salvation Army’s Australian positional statement on homosexuality:

“Homosexual practice … is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army. However, practising homosexuals are welcome to worship with, and join in the fellowship of The Salvation Army.”

How very kind of them!

How badly do you really want that coffee now? How much effort is it to just walk on to the next coffee shop?

And, sadly, when it comes to Gloria Jeans that’s not all.

Gloria Jeans’ owners

Gloria Jeans was founded by Nabi Saleh (an elder and board member of Hillsong Church, director of Alphacrucis – formerly the Southern Cross College of the Assemblies of God – and director of Kenneth Copeland Ministries Eagle Mountain International Church) and Peter Irvine (a member of Hillsong Church and formerly a director of the notorious Mercy Ministries) .

Kenneth Copeland Ministries

Let’s look at Saleh’s connections first. In 2010, Kenneth Copeland Ministries ‘Believers’ Voice of Victory Show’ was canned by Australia’s Channel 10 after complaints the program breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice by vilifying gays.

Copeland likes to whip up hatred for gays by telling his followers Jesus was gang raped by homosexual Roman soldiers ‘in every way possible’.

“Listen to me very carefully. The Bible’s very careful about the way it says these things. But down there in that dungeon, Romans, ungodly men, ungodly men, put Him (Jesus) to every kind of abuse that you can think of. There is no sin that Jesus didn’t bear. There is no thing, there is no such thing as a sexual abuse on somebody that Jesus doesn’t know firsthand what it’s all about.” – Copeland, The Resurrection Truth

Like Brian Houston from Hillsong, Copeland preaches the ‘prosperity gospel’ – code for the congregation tithes and the pastor gets obscenely rich. Copeland has done well out of it. The televangelist is reportedly worth $769 million. A US Senate investigation into Copeland revealed that:

“… the Copelands’ church provides the Copelands with an 18,000 square-foot mansion that was valued at over $6 million in 2008. It has two three-car garages and three boat slips. Its doors, Gloria Copeland brags, come from a castle. John Copeland confirmed the value of the house and added that their parsonage is also used for housing guest ministers, television taping, rest and relaxation, and includes offices for Kenneth and Gloria Copeland.”

As the owner of Gloria Jeans is a director of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Australia, one has to wonder how much money from Gloria Jeans is being filtered through to KCM to prop up the Copelands’ extravagant lifestyle and homophobic propaganda.

Mercy Ministries

Gloria Jean’s co-founder, Peter Irvine, was a director of Hillsong-backed Mercy Ministries. Gloria Jeans Coffee was a sponsor. Mercy Ministries offered treatment to young women suffering from depression, mental illness and eating disorders. Ostensibly ‘free’, once inducted into the program, the women were told to sign over their Centrelink payments. The professional medical help they were promised came in the form of exorcisms by Bible college students.

In December 2009, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found Irvine and other former directors of Mercy Ministries had engaged in false and misleading conduct and ordered to pay $1,050 to each of the 110 young women who took part in their programs. Pragmatically, both Hillsong and Gloria Jeans severed their association with Mercy Ministries in 2009.

Unpaid commissions to join venture partner

But Saleh’s and Irvine’s dirty dealings aren’t just confined to their religious delusions. In an ongoing battle, Gloria Jeans’ parent company has been found guilty of screwing over their joint venture partner, Western Export Services, for millions of dollars in unpaid commissions.

David Cisneros, a director of Western Export Services says:

”[Mr Saleh and Mr Irvine] had an external accountant who kept giving us numbers that we couldn’t trust .. For us this has been 16 years and this lawsuit has been running for six years. It represented 40 to 50 per cent of our business – we were a small company and we could not just walk away from it.”

On 11 June last year, Gloria Jeans’ parent company was ordered to pay Western over $12 million in commissions plus interest and court costs after the court found Jireh (read Nabi Saleh and Peter Irvine) had breached their joint venture agreement. According to Western, Jireh may not have the funds to make the payment and, at this stage, a stay order has been granted by the court.

Tantalisingly, Ross Koffell, lawyer for Western added, “A lot of information people have been trying to find out for so long about this business may finally be revealed in this case.”

So much for the Saleh’s ‘strong business acumen and Godly wisdom‘ touted on Hillsong’s website! Is it considered astute financial management, godly or wise to cheat your joint venture partner partner out of 12 million bucks and not be able to pay them back?

Hillsong Church

While Gloria Jeans and Hillsong have no formal financial ties, Nabi Saleh is an elder and board member of Hillsong and appears to be heavily involved in managing their financial affairs. Peter Irvine is a member of the church. Gloria Jeans ‘assists’ Hillsong with fundraising by supplying mobile coffee carts and coffee supplies.

Hillsong teaches that homosexuality is unnatural. For many years, Hillsong ran an ex-gay program called Exit International and, after its closure, referred homosexuals to other programs such as Exodus and Living Waters until the mid 2000s. Apparently, Hillsong’s current policy is not to refer homosexuals to ex-gay programs, but the church does not appear to be a safe or welcoming place for LGBTI people. As one gay former member of the church says:

“… every week I get another email, facebook message or someone else from church speaks to me, telling me they are being bullied at church or that they are depressed and just can’t break free from self hatred. Sadly, the most common story I hear is of a closeted gay or lesbian person at Hillsong who tells me that they are too scared to come out because they feel like if they did, people in church wouldn’t treat them the same.”

Hillsong has also had some very questionable business dealings. In 2006, for example, the church’s charitable arm, Hillsong Emerge was stripped of a sizeable federal grant for fraudulently suggesting its proposed program had the support of a local indigenous community. The Federal parliament was told, “”Hillsong Emerge has misused the Riverstone Aboriginal community to get taxpayers’ money for its own purposes.”

Making matters worse, when the fraud became apparent to the Riverstone Aboriginal Community and they threatened to take the matter to the media, Hillsong Emerge offered them a bribe of $280,000 to keep it quiet and fudge their support; an offer that was tartly refused.

If you’re indigenous, or have friends who are, you may wish to think twice before sharing your money with Gloria Jeans, a company with such close ties to Hillsong church.

Why I boycott Gloria Jeans Coffee – and you should too

So, just to recap: the Australian Christian Lobby, Hillsong Church, the Salvation Army and possibly Kenneth Copeland Ministries are four organisations you may inadvertently be supporting when you buy coffee from Gloria Jeans.

There is also, of course, the matter of their past involvement with the abusive Mercy Ministries, the deceptive practices of director, Peter Irvine, and the company allegedly ripping off a small joint-venture partner for millions of dollars. It’s not a business I’d care to have anything to do with – either as a franchisee, a staff member or a customer.

I’ve boycotted Gloria Jeans since my friend, Sean Wright (aka Sean the Blogonaut) alerted me to Gloria Jeans’ connection with Mercy Ministries and Hillsong. Reading Tanya Levin’s People in Glasshouses: an Insider’s Story of Life In and Out of Hillsong strengthened my resolve never to darken their doorstop. Admittedly, the fact that their coffee is over-cooked and tastes like dishwater made the decision considerably easier.

While there is something clearly rotten at the head of this company, I do understand that the franchisees, management and staff are not necessarily guilty of Irvine’s and Saleh’s bigotry, bastardry and poor judgement. So while I am calling for a boycott of Gloria Jeans, I am also calling for the people who actually run the stores to take a stand. Reclaim some decency for this company and demand that no more money be spent on religious ventures like Hillsong, Mercy Ministries, the Salvation Army or the Australian Christian Lobby.

If Irvine and Saleh want to make donations from their own personal wealth, that is their business. But while their company, Gloria Jeans Coffee is supporting homophobia, it reflects on everyone who works in that business.

Chrys Stevenson

* Please read this term inclusively as meaning, lesbian, bisexual, transexual, gay, intersex and queer.

*According to Suicide Prevention Australia, “38% of gay people have experienced discrimination. 50% have experienced verbal abuse. And shockingly, 74% of this abuse happened at school. Around 30% of Australian gay teenagers will attempt suicide. In Australia, on average over 200 young people will suicide this year. Around 30% of Australia’s gay teenagers will attempt suicide. Gay teens are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers.” If that doesn’t make Gloria Jeans coffee taste undrinkable, I don’t know what will.

*The truth, according to reputable academic data (see, for example, Jenny, C et al in Pediatrics, 1994), is that homosexual men (men who have sex with men) are less likely than heterosexual men to sexually abuse children. Sexual abuse by lesbians is almost unheard of. Men who have sex with boys may be heterosexual (and the abuse of boys opportunistic rather than signifying a sexual ‘preference’) or, often, they are sexually immature ‘hebephiles’ who are not sexually attracted to either adult males or women – only to children. The abuse of a boy by an adult male may be described as ‘homosexual molestation’ in some church reports, but, as experts at the University of California Davis attest, this does not mean that the adult involved was a homosexual. The distinction is important and accepted by all but fundamentalists with a bigoted barrow to push. As Father Edward L Beck, a Catholic priest notes:

“To link homosexuality and pedophilia (or ephebophilia) is obviously erroneous, uninformed and irresponsible. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia and ephebophilia are sexual disorders that afflict both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and mostly heterosexuals.”

Want to do more than just boycott?

Join the Boycott Gloria Jeans Facebook group

Ask your local Gloria Jeans franchiser if they are aware that profits from the company support a homophobic agenda (but do be polite, please!). There’s a Store Locator on the Gloria Jeans website.

Let your friends and social networking contacts know that Gloria Jeans supports homophobic organisations and suggest they may want to purchase their coffee elsewhere.

Do you own a coffee shop or a coffee franchise? Why not seize a great marketing opportunity, donate to Australian Marriage Equality and advertise yourself as a supporter. Consider this – when the Australian Christian Lobby started complaining about Sunrise on Seven’s support for the “I Do” same-sex marriage campaign, GetUp called for signatures from those who thought it was a great initiative. The initial target was 5,000 signatures. So far, over 41,000 people have signed.

Gloria Jeans responds to boycott

… (and I respond to Gloria Jeans)

Gloria Jeans has, today, responded to the boycott of their organisation, going viral on the internet. You can read it here on Same Same.

Gloria Jeans Coffees now confirms that in the 2010-2011 tax year it donated $30,000 to the Australian Christian Lobby.

“This was a once off donation during the time of the election… in support of the prime ministerial debate only,” says a spokesperson for the coffee chain today.

“What’s more, it is important to reiterate that we are not religiously affiliated or affiliated to any other beliefs or preferences, including Hillsong,” Gloria Jeans adds.

From the comments so far, it appears the gay community isn’t buying it, and nor am I.  I do accept without question that the franchisees, management and staff of Gloria Jeans may well ’embrace diversity’ but the fact remains that a considerable sum of money from the organisation has gone to the Australian Christian Lobby – the leading anti-gay group in the country.  Further, this is not just a ‘one off’. Gloria Jeans does supply fund-raising support to Hillsong and, in the past, its stores enthusiastically promoted and fund-raised for an organisation responsible for the religious abuse of vulnerable girls.

It will take a great deal more from Gloria Jeans for me to change my view. I would expect an undertaking that the organisation will, in future, refrain from any kind of support (financial or in kind) of any religiously linked organisation and, as a token of their commitment to equality and diversity, a contribution of $30,000 to Australian Marriage Equality or a similar LGBT organisation.

You can see my considered response here:  An Open Letter to Gloria Jeans – not buying the ‘spin’ guys

And follow-up post with more ‘hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar’ revelations here:  Oh, Gloria Jeans! You’ve done it again!

Following some official responses from the University of Wollongong on the Judy Wilyman affair (see my previous post), I’d like to make some further comment.

It’s interesting that when University of Wollongong academic, Matthew Berryman, first approached the university’s ethics committee about anti-vaccination campaigner, Judy Wilyman, they effectively said, “Nothing to do with us!”

Their excuse:

“Unless someone has made an application to carry out research using the HREC review process, this kind of thing isn’t something the committee deals with.”

So, unless one has asked the ethics committee to get involved in their work, there is no ethical overview? Remarkable!

And then, all of those who had written to the U of W started getting the same form letter back:

“Articles and associated comments published by Judy Wilyman on the internet, on vaccination issues, are her own personal views and not those of the University.”

“The University of Wollongong strongly supports the rights of academic freedom for people to openly express their points of view.”

Now, the first comment may be defensible if, say, Wilyman was doing a PhD on Aboriginal artefacts in Central Queensland while making public statements on vaccines. Clearly, the two are unrelated. But Wilyman’s thesis is “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy” hardly unrelated to her public comments against vaccination.

But wait, there’s more! Wilyman, herself, associates her public comments on vaccination with her status as a PhD candidate. As Reasonable Hank and I have both pointed out, her letter to the Australian Human Rights Commission is signed, “Judy Wilyman, PhD Candidate”. Why would she add this title if she did not want to send a message to the AHRC that she has ‘expertise’ in the field.

You can see on this website where Wilyman is giving her ‘opinion’ of vaccination, she clearly identifies herself as Judy Wilyman (PhD Candidate Environmental Health Policy at University of Wollongong).

Commenters on that website have a go at her for her habit of using the made up title of “PhD researcher” in order to give more weight to her opinions.

Futher, when Wilyman gave a public anti-vaccination lecture in Perth in 2010, she said:

“If vaccination was based on science then the media would not have to work so hard to suppress the information. You will notice the media reports rely on discrediting individuals and organisations and running fear campaigns to encourage parents to vaccinate. Did they mention in the papers that myself and [redacted] are both PhD researchers? “

Her point is that her comments should not be dismissed because of her status as a PhD ‘researcher’. You can hear her making this comment in the first few moments of this MP3 file.

Wilyman clearly makes no distinction between her academic research and her anti-vaccination campaigning. In fact, she takes great effort to conflate them. Although the above comment was made when she was enrolled at Murdoch, not Wollongong, it still speaks to the fact that Wilyman, herself, sees her anti-vaccination stance and her status as a PhD candidate not only as intertwined, but complementary. She shamelessly exploits her status as a PhD candidate in order to give her arguments weight.

While she was enrolled at Murdoch University, Wilyman produced an advertising poster for her anti-vax talk – including the Murdoch logo! You can see her admission here. The university was not pleased at this misuse of their logo, to say the least! A lawyer’s email sent to Dr Rachael Dunlop explained that the university had spent ‘considerable time and energy in having the poster removed from (anti-vaccination websites)” and that they “cannot allow the poster entitled “Coercive and Mandatory Immunisation” bearing the MURDOCH university marks (name and logo)” to remain in public view. What more evidence is needed that Wilyman has a history of harnessing the credibility of the university to which she is attached to bolster her own wacky views?

Wilyman brought Murdoch into disrepute by blurring the line between her PhD candidature and her anti-vaccination advocacy and now she is doing the same at Wollongong with her wild conspiracy theories.

At Wollongong she is supervised by Brian Martin who also seems to have a dog in the anti-vaccination fight. He can be seen here defending the Australian [anti] Vaccination Network, operated by Meryl Dorey.

Martin sees himself as defending ‘whistle-blowers’. But neither the AVN nor Judy Wilyman are legitimate whistle-blowers. They are dangerous conspiracy theorists whose misinformed ideology has real potential to endanger children’s lives.

It is worth noting that Wilyman’s views have no traction whatsoever in the mainstream scientific community. For example, the anti-vaccination views expressed in Perth by Dorey and Wilyman were dismissed by Australia’s ‘most esteemed health professional’, Professor Fiona Stanley as “so misinformed it is scary”, “not fair”, “bizarre” and “absolutely erroneous”.

Whose expertise should Australians trust most?

Academic freedom is important. But the adjective ‘academic’ is a vital part of the equation. Academics should not be free to use their positions to pedal absolute unsubstantiated bullshit. Academics should certainly have the freedom to pursue research where the evidence leads them. But the key word here is evidence, not ideology. Of course, there is a level of interpretation of data in all academic work, but the interpretation must be based on a framework of solid evidence. This is the duty of care academics (and students) have to the public; and universities should enforce that.

Let me pause here for a personal perspective. I began my Honours thesis with the hypothesis that a revival of Celtic identification amongst Australian-born citizens was linked to a young, left-wing, socially radical movement. My research showed exactly the opposite – that it was primarily an older and deeply conservative cohort who were choosing to identify as ‘Celtic’ as a defence against multiculturalism. I had to change my view because that is where the evidence led. There was no point being precious about my grand theory – it simply didn’t stand up! Of course, I was free to make interpretations about why there was a conservative move towards ethnic identification, but the work had to stand on a foundation of reputable evidence. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I was entitled to my own opinions, but not my own facts!

I would contend that Wilyman’s work, which so clearly conflicts with expert scientific consensus, appears not to be built on any such solid framework. Perhaps if Professor Stanley or Professor Ian Fraser – someone with the appropriate experience and qualifications – said that vaccination was potentially harmful, they could truly be viewed as a ‘whistle-blower’. But Wilyman is not qualified to make this assessment and it seems Professor Martin is not much interested in holding her feet to the fire when it comes to scientific evidence from credible sources or responsible interpretation of the data. American skeptic, Brian Dunning (following Irving Langmuir) has usefully described the approach we see from Wilyman as ‘pathological science‘: ‘research characterized more by obsession than by results.’

Just because someone is doing an Arts degree, doesn’t mean you can just make stuff up! Scientific method must be followed and interpretations must flow from credible source material.

But why is this a matter of public concern? Harking back to my previous analogy, if Wilyman was challenging the scientific community over whether an artefact found in Central Australia was 40,000 or 60,000 years old, it would make little difference to most ordinary Australians. But Wilyman has chosen to challenge a vaccination program which demonstrably saves lives. Moreover, where that vaccination program is undermined it demonstrably costs lives. That makes it crucial that both Wilyman and her university take responsibility for her public pronouncements.

UNICEF estimates that, in 2008, 1.7 million children died from vaccine preventable diseases. They note, further that:

• Immunization has saved over 20 million lives in the last two decades.
• More than 100 million infants are immunized each year, saving 2-3 million lives annually.

This is what Wilyman is arguing against – not just in her university thesis, but publicly. Does Wilyman (who does not yet even have a PhD) know more than UNICEF?

Moreover, Wilyman deliberately flaunts her position as a PhD Candidate or, as she likes to style herself ‘PhD researcher’ in order to give weight to what one of Australia’s most prominent medical academics, Fiona Stanley, has termed ‘misinformed’ and ‘bizarre’ theories.

This matters, because Wilyman’s misinformation potentially costs children’s lives.

In continuing her candidature, the University of Wollongong is providing Ms Wilyman with a status which makes her appear plausible to the general public and, as we have seen above, Wilyman exploits that to the ‘nth’ degree.

This is not an argument about academic freedom. It’s an argument about academic responsibility. Wollongong University must act.

If Wilyman’s interminable candidature ever does come to an end and she is awarded a PhD by any Australian university, I pledge that I will obtain a copy of her thesis – even if I have to get on a bus to Wollongong and physically photocopy the UofW library copy. I will then draw on my considerable network of medical, scientific and academic contacts to help me undertake a ‘critical analysis’ of Ms Wilyman’s work and believe me, if it does not meet a reasonable standard of academic evidence I shall be doing all that I can to bring this to the media’s attention as a failure of whatever university she may graduate from. Fair warning.

Chrys Stevenson

See also: On academic freedom and ethics by Dr Matthew Berryman on complexitydaemon

Yet another example of how Wilyman exploits her PhD candidature to peddle her conspiracy theories:  PhD Candidate Exposes Vaccine Horror from The Second Sight

“Ms Wilyman signs herself “PhD Researcher, Murdoch University”. It would seem she wishes to claim the imprimatur of her university enrolment to support her claims. Ms Wilman (PhD Researcher) is also, of course, the cohost of Meryl Dorey’s recent Perth Antivaccination Rally at the State Library.”

A closer look at Professor Brian Martin’s role is usefully provided by Losing in the Lucky Country:  Wollongong Uni, Brian Martin and Judy Wilyman – How far is too far?

An excerpt:

“So now we must ask more about our devotee to suppression of dissent, Dr. Brian Martin, who inserted himself in the defence of the AVN. How far is too far? Why did he attack the real whistleblower, Ken McLeod, and in doing so wrench the hearts of the McCaffery family? The whistle was blown on a cruel charity fraudster, a scam artist, a fear monger and one who had made a long living from donations gathered from members with the promise of urgent action to solve manufactured dissent.

The AVN took in $1.8 million between 2004 and 2010. It’s estimated they owe over $155,000 in unprinted magazines for which they have already been paid the subscription fees. This blog is dotted with the fraud making the AVN many tens of thousands more and numerous scams to keep fear running. Does Brian Martin seriously defend and enable such conduct with the defence of academic neutrality?

Brian Martin publishes using his title at University of Wollongong and his UOW email address. So again, how far is too far for this university to turn a blind eye to sickness, degradation and incredibly the corruption that yields a profit for the AVN? Research and academia at the University of Wollongong appear synonymous with antivaccination schemes.

At what point does dissent become denial? Or rather, why should denial ever be labelled dissent? How can a PhD supervisor support denial and antisocial tactics in the name of education? “ [read more]

Here is a fact:

At 32 days old, Dana McCaffery died of whooping cough – also known as pertussis.

Here are some more facts:

Dana was born perfectly healthy.

She was not yet old enough to be vaccinated for pertussis.

At the time Dana was admitted to Lismore Base Hospital, Australia was already in the grip of one of the worst whooping cough epidemics on record – the result of vaccination falling well below optimum levels.

Dana’s was not an isolated case. There were an alarming 19,000 cases of whooping cough reported in Australia in the year Dana was born and Dana’s death was the third fatality. As Dana fought for her life in the Lismore Base Hospital, two other babies suffering from the same disease were airlifted to Brisbane for emergency treatment. This was not some rare, seldom seen disease. It was common, well-known, well-documented and rampant.

Dana’s parents watched her die. They were eye-witnesses to the distressing symptoms which killed their daughter. There is no doubt in their minds that Dana died of whooping cough.

Similarly, Dr Chris Ingall, who treated Dana at the Lismore Base Hospital, has no doubt about the cause of Dana’s death. According to Dr Ingall, Dana died of pertussis. No question.

But not everyone believes this. Two women in particular have persistently claimed that Dana did not die of pertussis.

No, they were not in the hospital watching Dana die as her parents were. No, they did not treat Dana as Dr Ingall did. No, they do not have medical degrees, or any qualifications in paediatrics or immunology. Still, these two women believe they know better than Dana’s doctor and her parents. What’s more, they have made the McCaffery’s lives a misery by intrusively and persistently questioning the diagnosis because it doesn’t fit with their unscientific, anti-vaccination ideology. One of these women, Judy Wilyman, is a PhD candidate at the University of Wollongong.

I wonder what unmitigated gall, what inflated sense of importance makes these people think they know better than a specialist paediatrician and a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Physicians.

Let’s just stop for a moment to consider what’s required to earn the right to add the post nominal FRACP to one’s name.

First, you need to get a medical degree. That takes 4-6 years. After graduation you have to work as an intern for a year, before working as a resident for another year. Vocational training as a registrar takes a further 3-8 years. Then you can apply to study for membership of a college. This will probably involve two stages of examinations (basic and advanced) which you must pass in order to become a ‘fellow’.

I think it should probably go without saying, that for someone with these qualifications, diagnosing a common, well-known, well-charted childhood disease would hardly require the diagnostic gymnastics one sees in an episode of House.

Dana McCaffery died of pertussis. That is an established, unequivocal, indisputable fact.

And now, I will pass you on to my good friend, Reasonable Hank, to take up the story (with some comments from me [CS]):

“Judy Wilyman is a PhD student at the University of Wollongong, under the supervision of Professor Brian Martin. [CS: Prior to that, Ms Wilyman studied under the supervision of Dr Peter Dingle – do check the link if you haven’t heard of him.]

Last week, Wilyman sent a letter to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner; and, Meryl Dorey published it on the Australian Vaccination Network blog.

[CS: Wilyman signed her letter “Judy Wilyman, PhD candidate” in order, one imagines, to give greater weight to her opinion. In my opinion, this means that her submission was made ‘officially’ in her capacity as a PhD candidate at the University of Wollongong and the university should either take responsibility for its content, or consider disciplinary action.]

Amongst the claims made by Wilyman is that the death of baby Dana McCaffery is “anecdotal evidence” used in the Government’s tainted agenda to immunise children:

These programs have been promoting the whooping cough vaccine on anecdotal evidence (in particular, Dana McCaffery’s death) and the mantra of ‘seeing sick babies gasping for air’.

Pretty ghastly stuff.

[Dana’s father] David McCaffery was again forced to issue a statement in the hope that Dorey and Wilyman would leave them alone, and cease inflicting unnecessary pain on the family, by abusing the memory of their daughter:

Meryl Dorey, you have been asked time after time not to mention our daughter Dana on your website. The recent article by Judy Wilyman is false, dangerous, misleading and disrespectful. She has no expertise in the area of vaccines and has not asked, nor does she have, our permission to discuss our daughter’s death.

Let’s be clear, Dana’s death to whooping cough and the issues related to it, are not anecdotal. How can you and Ms Wilyman be so callous?

Dana died from whooping cough, a vaccine preventable disease. And we mourn her death every day. You and your friends add torture to our pain.

Ms Dorey, you and your group simply do not know us and we ask you to stop discussing Dana’s death. Her tragic death is not something that you can toy with to promote your misleading ideology.

Once again, you and Ms Wilyman are not friends of ours, or medical doctors and know nothing about Dana’s life or death.

BTW – Both of you, do not take this post as an invite to respond in any way. Leave us and our little girl alone!

David McCaffery

In August 2010, [Dana’s mother] Toni McCaffery had previously issued a remarkable take-down of a previous Dorey blog post, in which Dorey again spread misinformation about the circumstances surrounding Dana’s death. How many times do these people need to be told to act honourably?

Toni concludes:

Enough is enough. We just simply ask the AVN and Mrs Dorey to stop spreading false information about our daughter. She caught whooping cough. She died a torturous death. Leave her in peace and stop misleading the public.

Whooping cough is dangerous, and deadly for 1 in 200 babies.

Now after having to deal with these lies, I have to take my children to a birthday party and try to be normal.

Mrs Dorey and the AVN…please leave my family alone.

How many times, indeed.

Today, Wilyman accused the McCaffery family of being beneficiaries of monetary payment, from vaccine “lobby groups”, for their work in ensuring the community receives accurate information about vaccine preventable diseases. In effect, Wilyman used the Pharma Shill Gambit, on a family whose baby daughter died from Whooping Cough:

[CS: Toni McAffery has since responded on Facebook:

Mrs Dorey and Ms Wilyman – you are enabling harrassment. I am writing here because I know you read this. Retract your comments immediately. Dana IS NOT an anecdote. We DO NOT receive money for warning people about whooping cough. That is the most disgusting allegation – one we have tolerated over and over again from your members. The money we received [from] the Australian Skeptics we donated to research to save babies from Pertussis. Government has not ‘used us’ to promote vaccines in recent media stories. We agree to such interviews in our own time without any agenda other than to give people the warning we did not receive. I wish the Government did more – but it has taken 3 years to get a brochure that I would have given anything to receive. We gave permission for Dana’s story to appear on the brochure. We give up our time to support other families. Parents have a right to be warned about whooping cough and given accurate information. We did not get that warning. It is up to parents if they want to vaccinate. It is also up to any parent to go public and speak to media. Do not use us against other families. We are not your toys to play with.

Toni McCaffery

I’m a little lost for words…

Nice friends you have there, Professor Martin.

Please: let all of your friends and colleagues know about these horrid, dangerous people.”

Thanks Hank. Now, I have some questions.

Does Wollongong University condone its PhD students harassing and distressing the parents of a dead child?

Did Ms Wilyman seek the permission of her supervisor or the university before using her PhD candidature at the University of Wollongong to give weight to the pile of absolute crap she peddled to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner?

Does Wollongong University really pay a professor to supervise nonsensical ‘research’ like Wilyman’s; a quixotic and apparently interminably long venture which seems more intent on ignoring credible scientific evidence than collating it?

Has Wollongong University considered how awarding a PhD to Ms Wilyman will bring the university into disrepute and devalue all PhDs awarded by that institution? Surely, if Wilyman can get a PhD for her unscientific bilge, a PhD from Wollongong is not worth the paper it’s written on!

Isn’t it time that Wollongong University had someone other than Professor Martin take a long, hard look at Ms Wilyman’s ‘research’ and determine whether it’s in the best interests of the university for her to continue?

And I have one more, personal question. Why did I recently receive an email from a professor at the University of Western Sydney ‘casually’ inquiring into a remark I made against Meryl Dorey and saying “I understand (from colleagues) that Dorey is often accused in the way you accused/dismissed her but no evidence is provided.”

No evidence? Really? Are professors at the University of Western Sydney not required to know how to google?

And who were these ‘colleagues’ I wondered. Who could they be?

The good professor didn’t divulge their names but it took me, oh, all of three minutes to find by amazing coincidence that her PhD supervisor was also Professor Brian Martin from the University of Wollongong. Yes! The same academic who’s supervising Ms Wilyman’s PhD. Yep! Jinx! Isn’t that just too spooky?

And yes, Wilyman and the despicable Ms Dorey are as thick as thieves.

You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots, do you?

Surely the time has come for Wollongong University to take a long, hard look at Ms Wilyman’s ‘research methods’ and consider whether her ethics are consistent with those required by the university.

Surely it is time for Wollongong University to take a long hard look at Professor Martin and ask what his role is in this whole sorry affair.

And maybe the University of Western Sydney should ask why one of their staff, a former student of Professor Martin’s, seems to be buying Meryl Dorey’s persecution story ‘hook, line and sinker’ without, apparently, possessing even the basic ability to google some scholarly literature on the subject.

Is incompetence and unsubstantiated ‘woo’ becoming an epidemic in NSW universities? And is there a vaccine for it?

Chrys Stevenson

Reasonable Hank’s original blog post: Judy Wilyman and Meryl Dorey: as low as it goes

See also:

Peter Bowditch: Almost unimaginable filth

Update: U of W reins in Wilyman?

and my follow up blog post:  Why Wollongong’s abdication of responsibility for Wilyman won’t wash

Important note: This post refers to Geoff Bullock of Family Voice Australia. It does not refer to the Australian songwriter of the same name.

Dear Geoff

You may recall that at the recent Your Death, Your Choice forum in Maroochydore we had a particularly animated discussion on voluntary euthanasia, during which I promised to send you evidence of my claim that your pronouncement on involuntary euthanasia was not only false, but mischievous. (OK, I said ‘evil’, not mischievous.)

You may be surprised and discomfited that rather than replying to you privately, I have chosen to do so publicly. Let me explain my reasons.

I took some time to debate the ethics of this in my own mind. Ultimately, I determined that it was fair for the following reasons:

1. You are not just a private citizen, you are a senior member of a political lobby group.
2. In asking me to contact you, you did not hand me a private card – you handed me your political lobbyist’s business card.
3. You made your statement in a public forum. It seems fair that my response should also be public.
4. Writing, researching and editing this response has taken me three days – because I care about proper research and accuracy. I know intuitively that you will reject every piece of evidence presented to you in this letter or, if you deign to accept that I am right on this one point, you will scurry away to find other things from the Christian blog-o-sphere that seem to suggest that voluntary euthanasia is dangerous/evil/out-of-control/about to bring in Nazi-style eugenics/will result in little old ladies being knocked off for the inheritance, etc.

In other words, I know that writing to you privately is almost certainly a complete and utter waste of my time. I might borrow from the Bible and say ‘casting pearls before swine’ , but that would be unkind.

So, Geoff, this letter isn’t really for you. It’s to expose people like you and it’s to inform people who may come into contact with people like you that Christians are not always to be believed. They do not always represent “The Truth” as one might expect. In fact, sometimes, Christians stand up in public forums, misrepresent their level of expertise and spew out a great deal of absolute nonsense on subjects about which they know very little.

That is why I am writing this letter; not with any faint hope that you have any genuine interest in “The Truth”.

So, let’s get down to specifics. At the Your Death, Your Choice forum you stood up in a forum of around 200 people and declared that after voluntary euthanasia was legalized in The Netherlands, the rate of involuntary euthanasia increased.

When you were told by a number of experts that this was completely untrue, you insisted that you had researched this, giving the impression that you, yourself, were some kind of authority.

After the forum, you will recall that I challenged you. You see, Geoff I have researched the academic literature on voluntary euthanasia. I don’t claim to be an expert – that would take years – but I’ve spent months on it, researching, reading, writing, speaking to doctors and nurses and to those whose loved ones have suffered because people like you pollute the public debate with lies, misinformation and propaganda.

You may care to read some of my articles:

Activist Dead Wrong on Voluntary Euthanasia (written with Dr David Leaf)

The Debate on Assisted Dying: Distortion, Misinformation and the Influence of the Religious Lobby (for DWD NSW)

Take Control of Your Own Death Before It’s Too Late

I knew you had not done your research because:

a) what you were saying was bollocks and

b) I had actually read the reports whose findings you were so blatantly misrepresenting.

I promised I would send you the evidence which contradicts what you said at the forum and you assured me that you were only interested in “The Truth”. I doubt this is true, Geoff. I suspect that you are only interested in “The Truth” when it accords with your narrow, Biblical world-view. When it challenges that view, it seems you are quite happy to opt for the lies and misinformation which appear to support it.

Let me begin by telling you what Dutch academics, John Griffiths (Emeritus Professor of Sociology of Law), Heleen Weyers (Lecturer in Legal Theory) and Maurice Adams (Professor of Law) have to say about how academic research on voluntary euthanasia in The Netherlands is distorted by those with ideological agendas.

“Imprecision, exaggeration, suggestion and innuendo, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, ideological ipsedixitism, and downright lying and slander (not to speak of bad manners) have taken the place of careful analysis of the problem and consideration of the Dutch evidence.”

Make no mistake, they’re talking about you and yours. Yes, Geoff, unwittingly you identified yourself as one of those base religionists to whom ideology is more important than the facts. That’s how I picked you out as ‘religious’ at the Your Death, Your Choice forum. You checked all the boxes.

I hope you have the grace to be embarrassed by the fact you can be so easily identified as a fundamentalist Christian because your public pronouncements (and not just those at the YDYC forum) fit the description given above.

I didn’t even need to meet you to know you were a Christian, but you confirmed the type of Christianity even before you gave me your business card. Do you know how ?

When I asked you directly if you had done your research from a ‘religious’ perspective you spluttered, “I’m not going to tell you that! That’s irrelevant!”

Strange, isn’t it, that when I asked directly if you were coming from a religious perspective you repeatedly refused to confirm it. A bit like Peter’s denial of Jesus, isn’t it Geoff?

As several people have said to me, “Why didn’t he just say, ‘Yes, I’m a Christian, and that’s why the truth is important to me!’?”

But I know why. I’ve become very familiar with fundamentalist Christians trying to hide their religious affiliations in order to seem more authoritative. It’s why your political lobby group is called “Family Voice” instead of a more transparent “Christian Voice”. It’s why the Family First Party isn’t called the God First Party and it’s why Doctors for the Family isn’t called “Doctors willing to make shit up for Jesus”.

All those names would be far more accurate, but you guys aren’t about truth and accuracy are you, Geoff? It’s all about ‘spin’.

“Don’t make it obvious we’re coming from a religious perspective – no-one will believe us!”

Isn’t that a sorry indictment of the depths to which fundamentalism has brought Christianity?

The thing is, Geoff, you know and I know, the moment you admit you’re a Christian – especially a Christian of a certain conservative, fundamentalist type – your credibility is shot.

Why?

Because your lot are doing such a fabulous job of destroying the reputation of your religion by trying to prop up the unsupportable, widely debunked rationales for your narrow minded prejudices with a world-wide litany of: ‘“Imprecision, exaggeration, suggestion and innuendo, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, ideological ipsedixitism, and downright lying and slander (not to speak of bad manners)” – and not just on voluntary euthanasia!

Research, Geoff, is not reading Bill Muehlenberg’s blog and stopping by at a few other Christian websites.

You may not have picked this up when you were doing your unaccredited licentiate in theology (Th.L) at the Australian College of Theology, Geoff, but to call what you did, ‘research’ is either blatant misrepresentation or pitiful self-delusion. (I fear that, in your case, because you did seem like a very nice man, it’s the latter.)

Nevertheless, you are an adult in a position of authority and you have to take responsibility for your words. You also have to take responsibility for those you associate with.

Too often your co-religionists stand up and utter absolute rot and are never held to account. You, Geoff – nice as you may be – are today’s sacrificial lamb.

Christopher James Ryan MBBS, FRANZCP (note the post-nominals, Geoff – just a tad more authoritative than ThL, CDec) has this to say about the slippery slope meme you so artlessly invoked at the Your Death, Your Choice forum:

“The slippery slope does not try to argue its case by drawing conclusions from carefully constructed premises, nor does it rely upon a systematic review of empirical evidence. Any sort of formal argument for the slope’s predictions would be quickly bogged down in detail and uncertainty …

Those who make use of the slippery slope … do not concern themselves with [empirical evidence]. They do not need to because, the slippery slope is not really an argument at all.

Rather, it is a stern and knowing warning – an ethical “beware the Ides of March”.

The slippery slope is what Daniel Dennett has termed an intuition pump. Intuition pumps bypass the uncertain and exhausting path of convincing readers with careful and detailed argument in favour of a more easily travelled byway that speeds readers to a conclusion based upon their gut feeling. Intuition pumps replace argument with slogans and telling images. They are designed to convince readers of the truth of what they already suspected.

Although intuition pumps do not depend upon empirical evidence, they will utilise such facts as are available to further their cause.”

In simpler terms, the ‘slippery slope’ argument, much beloved of fundamentalist Christians, makes you look rather like Henny Penny in the children’s story.

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” she clucks frantically, and is soon joined in her panic by all her friends, who never think to ask if her interpretation of the ‘evidence’ is sound.

Of course, Henny Penny and her friends met a rather gruesome end. Gullibility is unsustainable in the long term.

This is a bit long-winded, I know, and it gets worse. But I really want you to understand what a very, very bad reputation you fundamentalist Christians have in the mainstream world where “The Truth” you say you so ardently seek is defined as ‘that which is’ not ‘that which one wants to believe’.

You are entitled to your own opinion, Geoff. You are not entitled to your own facts*. Facts are things which are independent of what you’d ‘like to believe’. They are not things which can or should be reformulated in order to be shoe-horned into your narrow ideology.

One of the academics at the conference sought me out after the forum and said to me, “You know, there are some people who will never be convinced by evidence.”

They had you summed up, too.

I said, “I know.”

Another expert on voluntary euthanasia emailed me, warning me about wasting my time on “fruitcakes you are never EVER going to convince.”

I said, “I know.”

They are both right. Sad to say, I could drive up to your house today with a semi-trailer full of academic research which confirms that, where voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide has been legalised it is operating safely and efficiently with widespread community support (80 per cent in the Netherlands, for instance). I could bring with me a bus load of experts from medicine, science and academia to say– as the experts told you on Saturday – there is no ‘slippery slope’. You would still not believe what they told you, because it conflicts with your religious convictions.

Your ‘research’ into voluntary euthanasia was so poor that you didn’t even realise the ‘evidence’ you were parroting is a gross misrepresentation of a statistic from the Remmelink Report, published in 1991. You hadn’t even heard of Remmelink!

Remmelink has been superseded by two major research projects, commissioned by the Dutch government – both of which follow the format of Remmelink. I suspect you didn’t stumble across them in your research, either, Geoff.

But, first, let’s get our terms right.

You stated that your research showed that the incidence of involuntary euthanasia increased in The Netherlands after euthanasia was legalised. I suspect that what you were talking about was non-voluntary euthanasia also known as ‘euthanasia without explicit request’. Basic research would have clarified this for you, but you will find the two terms commonly used interchangeably on Christian websites.

Voluntary euthanasia means a patient has explicitly asked a doctor to help them end their life and that this request has been properly formalised with all the appropriate paperwork.

Non-voluntary euthanasia means that a doctor, almost always in consultation with her colleagues and the patient’s family, makes the sad decision that the best thing for the terminal patient is to hasten their death. This doesn’t mean the patient was never consulted about their wishes. It may simply mean that their wishes were not formally recorded and, at the time of their death, they were not in a position to confirm their request.

There is certainly an argument for tightening up administrative practices – but it is a long way from suggesting a patient has been killed against their will.

Have you ever considered why it might be impossible to gain the consent of the patient at the time a lethal dose of medication is administered?

Perhaps the disease has progressed too far, perhaps the patient is brain damaged, perhaps they suffer from some kind of ‘locked in’ syndrome like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), or perhaps the patient is a child or a baby who cannot practically give consent for themselves. The patient may well have spoken to their family or doctor previously about their wishes, but if their wishes were not filled out on the appropriate forms, their death will be recorded as ‘without explicit request’.

Involuntary euthanasia occurs only when a terminal patient has explicitly said, “I do not want to receive assistance in dying” and the doctor proceeds to hasten their death against their will; or, when a doctor decides to kill someone whose death is not imminent and who has not expressed a wish to have their death hastened. In every country and jurisdiction where voluntary euthanasia is legal, this is, if proven, a criminal offence attracting a jail term.

The Remmelink Report, is the foundation report for research into euthanasia. Undertaken in 1990, it is, of course, now way out of date. But, as a document against which we can measure the trajectory of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, it is invalauble.

It is important to note that the Remmelink study was undertaken before voluntary euthanasia was legalized in the Netherlands. (Up until then, voluntary euthanasia was tolerated under certain circumstances but was not yet legal.)

Even taking all this into account it is absolutely untrue to say that the Remmelink Commission found widespread involuntary or even non-voluntary euthanasia. In fact, the Remmelink Commission found no cases of involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands during the period of their review. None. Not one.

It did find (and this is where all the Henny Pennys and Turkey-Lurkeys start clucking and gobbling!) 1000 cases where a doctor deliberately ended the life of a patient without a clear and explicit request from the patient. This represented 0.8 per cent of all deaths.

Yes, it’s a tiny, tiny percentage isn’t it? I wonder if you knew how small this figure was as a percentage of total deaths before you stood up and spruiked about all the research you’d done, Geoff?

But still, 1000 people killed against their will! That’s barbaric!

But this was not involuntary euthanasia, Geoff. It was non-voluntary euthanasia.

Ryan (1998) provides some important clarifying information on these 1000 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia (please remember, this figure is not current, it reflects the situation in The Netherlands two decades ago, before VE was fully legal):

“[Remmelink’s] detailed analysis of the instances of life terminating acts without explicit request revealed that in 59% of cases the physician did have information about the patient’s wishes through discussion with the patient and/or a previous request. In all other cases discussion with the patient was no longer possible. In 86% of cases life was shortened by a few hours or a day at most and no instances of involuntary euthanasia were discovered.”

So, Geoff, while technicaly, 1000 deaths are categorized as ‘without explicit request’, the wishes of 590 of those patients were known to their physician. They were not killed against their wishes, they were euthanized in accordance with their wishes.

But what of the other 410?

Let’s jump forward to Agnes van der Heide’s (and colleagues) 2007 follow-up on Remmelink, because she clearly sets out how we might understand this category of euthanasia ‘without explicit request’.

Van der Heide tells us that, in 2007, requests were not received from 10.4 per cent of the patients because ‘they were unconscious’ and in 15.3 per cent of cases there were ‘other factors’ which made an explicit request impossible. A further 14.4 per cent of patients were unable to give consent because they were children or babies – their parents gave consent on their behalf. In 80.9 per cent of cases, the decision to hasten death was discussed with the patient’s relatives. In 65.3 per cent of cases, the decision was made in consultation with other health professionals.

In other words, Geoff, euthanasia ‘without explicit request’ does not mean involuntary euthanasia, nor does it necessarily even mean the patient was not consulted or that their views were not taken into account.

But, my goodness cry all the Henny Pennys! Why would someone’s family want to hasten the death of a loved one – unless, of course, there were nefarious motives. Rushing to reap the rewards of a rich aunt’s will, perhaps?

Sanctimoniously, Geoff, you, yourself have written on Bill Muehlenberg’s blog that ‘the sanctity of life is far more important than the quality of life’.

Have you ever seen how a cancer patient’s life might end, Geoff? Where is the sanctity in a beautiful young woman, in the final hours of her life, uncontrollably vomiting faeces from her mouth?

If it were your daughter or wife, would you be piously prattling about the wonderful ‘dignity’ and ‘sanctity’ of her last hours?

What would be most compassionate, Geoff; to leave her in her indignity, or for her loved ones and her doctor to consult and decide that the kindest thing to do, what she would have wanted, would be to hasten her inevitable and imminent death?

What of an old man with uncontrollable gangrene in his foot? Would you have been able to wax lyrical about the sanctity of his life as he lay in a palliative care ward for months begging to be released from his suffering as the gangrene, slowly and excruciatingly spread, rotting him to death?

If I was angry with you on Saturday, Geoff, I was not as angry as I should have been, because these are the kinds of people I was speaking up for. These are the kinds of people who continue to suffer because, what is more important to you and other anti-euthanasia lobbyists is that terminally ill patients, with their own views on what is right for them, should be required to abide by YOUR particular view of what is right and what is wrong. Who died and made you God, Geoff?

It’s not enough, for you, is it Geoff, that you could refuse to have your own death hastened?

No! God-like, you seek to push your views on to others – lobbying your little heart out without even stopping to think of the suffering your stance causes, or the possibility that you might be wrong. Without even bothering, I may add, to spend the time doing some accurate, unbiased research.

But, it is inconceivable to you that you may be wrong, there is no need for you to do any serious research into the rubbish you’ve read on Christian websites. You just take it as ‘read’.

As a senior member of a Christian lobby group I don’t doubt you’ve made similar representations to polticians on euthanasia, on abortion, on stem-cell research, on homosexuality – in the firm conviction that you’ve ‘researched’ them.

Sadly, like Henny Penny’s followers, they probably believed what you told them – a Christian wouldn’t lie or misrepresent their level of expertise, would they, Geoff?

Since Remmelink, there have been two, major, official and widely accepted peer-reviewed reports which you don’t seem to have stumbled across in your ‘research’ on voluntary euthanasia. They are:

Van der Maas et al (1996) “Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995”, New England Journal of Medicine.

And, as previously mentioned:

Van der Heide et al (2007), “End-of-Life Practices in the Netherlands under the Euthanasia Act”, New England Journal of Medicine.

Both of these are available on the internet for anybody who takes a modicum of interest in reading the actual key source documents for research into voluntary euthanasia in The Netherlands.

If you had bothered to read these reports, Geoff, you would have found that van der Maas makes it very clear that:

“Further scrutiny of the case histories in the interview study showed that decisions to end life without the patient’s request covered a wide range of situations, with a large group of patients having only a few hours or days to live, whereas a small number had a longer life expectancy but were evidently suffering greatly, with verbal contact no longer possible.”

In other words, van der Maas and his colleagues didn’t just jump to the uninformed conclusion that you did. They took the time to ask, “What are the particular circumstances of these patients whose deaths were hastened without explicit request? Is there a reasonable explanation why this was done?”

Having done this, van der Maas and his researchers found no cause for alarm. The sky was not falling.

Not only that, when comparing the numbers of cases categorised as ‘without explicit request’ with the Remmelink Report, they found, “The frequency of cases in which life was ended without an explicit request by the patient has decreased somewhat since 1990.”

In the second follow-up report (2007), van der Heide confirms that deaths ‘without explicit request’ further decreased from 0.7 per cent in 2001 to 0.4 per cent in 2004 – a factor of almost 50 per cent.

This lays to rest the ‘slippery slope’ argument in terms of euthanasia ‘without explicit request’.

Van der Heide also found that, rather than escalating, the overall number of deaths due to voluntary euthanasia decreased slightly. Legalising euthanasia did not lead to an explosion of euthanasia deaths – either with or without explicit request.

I know this is long, and I apologise to my regular readers – but not to Geoff who has probably long, since left us. I must continue as there is more that needs to be said on this subject.

The charge is that legalising euthanasia is what leads to a high incidence of involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. It’s implied that legalising euthanasia is the causative factor; that whatever is happening prior to legalisation, will inevitably get worse afterwards. Again, studies have shown this charge to be completely unfounded.

A 1997 comparative study by Helga Kuhse et al found that, in Australia, 1.8 per cent of deaths were the result of voluntary euthanasia – the same rate as in the Netherlands. According to this study, euthanasia occurs at more or less the same rate whether it is legal or not.

While voluntary euthanasia was not yet formally legal in the Netherlands in 1997, the Dutch Supreme Court had ruled three years earlier that it was acceptable, provided doctors followed strict guidelines. So, the comparison here is between the Netherlands, which had a ‘high tolerance’ for voluntary euthanasia, and Australia, where it was then and is now, uncompromisingly illegal.

This (and other similar studies) tells us that, in countries where voluntary euthanasia is illegal, it is being performed anyway – with and without ‘explicit request’.

But, here is the difference that you and your fellow anti-euthanasia propagandists ignore, Geoff. Where voluntary euthanasia is not legal, it is being performed without regulation. You heard that for yourself at the Your Death, Your Choice forum. If you’re ‘in the know’ you can make a phone call to a doctor who ‘does that sort of thing’ (on the ‘sly’ of course) and get him to pop over and ‘oblige’. (Please note, I am not suggesting the obliging doctor would agree to this for just anyone. My point is that that because voluntary euthanasia is illegal, they have to make an assessment on only their own judgment.)

Is that really what you want, Geoff? Because that is what your opposition to regulated voluntary euthanasia is perpetuating.

Let’s continue.

Kuhse et al found that, in Australia, cases where the patient’s life was ended without their explicit request comprised 3.5% of all deaths – around 5 or 6 times the number in the Netherlands. Overall, they found, “Australia had a higher rate of intentional ending of life without the patient’s request than the Netherlands.”

Speaking of Kuhse’s research, Ryan confirms that:

“If the slippery slope were a reflection of reality, the rate of non-voluntary euthanasia in Australia should have been lower than that in the Netherlands. The results indicated that exactly the opposite was true. The rate of non-voluntary euthanasia in Australia was 3.5% (+_0.8%), far higher than the 0.8% and 0.7% reported in the two Dutch studies.”

And this holds for other countries as well. A comparative survey, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal explains that:

“Opponents of euthanasia often argue that legalizing the procedure will lead to a rise in the use of life-ending drugs without a patient’s explicit request, especially in vulnerable patient groups. Thus far, however, no indications of this have been found in studies of physician-assisted deaths before and after legalization in Belgium and the Netherlands. In Belgium, the percentage of deaths in which life-ending drugs were used remained stable, and the proportion without an explicit request from the patient decreased.

Other studies have shown that euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and the use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request are not confined to countries where physician-assisted death is legal.”

Let me just hammer this home Geoff (in case you’re still with me and didn’t stomp off disgusted at the point I said “making shit up for Jesus”).

Credible studies from expert researchers, published in mainstream academic journals, show the rate of non-voluntary euthanasia tends to be significantly higher in countries where it is illegal (e.g. Australia) than in the countries where laws were more liberal (e.g. The Netherlands and Belgium).

The myth that legalising euthanasia causes high rates of non-voluntary euthanasia has been thoroughly debunked; but, of course, that doesn’t stop anti-euthanasia propagandists from trotting it out as ‘evidence’ of the non-existent ‘slippery slope’.

Let me stress this point. Voluntary euthanasia is already happening in Australian hospitals and nursing homes. It happens unregulated, unsupervised and without reporting procedures. Is this what you want, Geoff?

“Do you know how many vials of morphine are ‘accidentally’ broken at 3am in the morning in Catholic nursing homes?” a GP asked me recently.

Legalization brings in stringent procedures and safeguards. It requires multiple checks to ensure that the patient is competent and not being coerced. Such rigour is not possible if the doctor or nurse has to administer the lethal injection alone, and in the dead of night, to avoid conviction.

Because politicians buy the misinformation put about by people like you, Geoff, people are being euthanised without any checks or balances – and often without their explicit request. Not because euthanasia is legal, but because it’s not legal!

Some, who aren’t confident they’ll find someone to euthanize them shoot themselves in the head, or hang themselves, or take an overdose of drugs at home – subjecting their family to criminal investigations.

That’s what happens without legalization. So, if compassion for human suffering and reducing the incidence of euthanasia ‘without explicit request’ is really your concern, may I suggest you should be campaigning for legalization because that is what will reduce both of those things.

But, that’s not your real concern, is it Geoff? No, your only concern is to push your narrow religious view onto the rest of us, through legislation, regardless of the consequences.

I have written a great deal on this. Much more than I expect you will read. But I promised you evidence and I always keep my promises. I promised you “The Truth” and I have supplied it; not a truth biased by ideology, but the kind of truth that comes from proper research and critical analysis.

What you represented at the Your Death, Your Choice forum, Geoff was ideologically biased delusion. Whether you knew that or not is really not important, because you have adopted this as a ‘way of thinking’ and that is your responsibility.

I can see from your comments on the internet, that you don’t confine your ideological bias to euthanasia. You make the same mistake in formulating your views and policies on abortion, homosexuality, same-sex parenting, stem-cell research and a host of other issues. Have you ‘researched’ them, too, Geoff?

What is important is that your ideological bias compels you to be dishonest. You have to get the facts to fit your world view.

If this only affected you, I’d say, “Fair enough.”

But it’s not “fair enough” because this kind of chicanery has real life consequences. It hurts people – badly. It ruins lives. It causes suicides. It is not based on a genuine desire to help people and make their lives better, it is based on a hubristic desire to prove that your Biblical world-view is right – no matter what the real truth might be.

Chrys Stevenson

If you’ve been moved or inspired by this article, please join the fight to legalize voluntary euthanasia in Australia.

The most effective thing you can do is join a lobby group in your own state or territory – you can find them here.

If you are independently wealthy, or happen to have a ‘little bit to play with’, please consider making a donation to any of these organisations.

If you are updating your will (I assume you have a will, don’t you???) please consider leaving a bequest to Dying with Dignity. It may not help you, but it may help your loved ones.

And, finally, it is important to note that I speak independently, and not on behalf of Dying with Dignity or Palliative Care Queensland which hosted the Your Death, Your Choice forum at which Mr Bullock and I clashed. My opinions are entirely my own.

However, I would urge you to also look at the magnificent work that Palliative Care organisations do in your state and understand that they are grossly underfunded – particularly in Queensland which, we were told, “is one of the worst places to die in Australia”. If you can manage a donation to Palliative Care, please do so. Here are the links.

*While I’d love to claim it as my own, the statement “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts” must be attributed to its originator, US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (Thanks to Hilton Travis for finding the origin of the quote.)

In October 2004, when asked for his opinon on same-sex marriage, Barack Obama replied, “What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved …I don’t think marriage is a civil right.”

By 2010, the President had softened his stance, saying, “My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this.”

In October 2011, when asked if he would extend his support for civil unions to same-sex marriage, he replied, “I’m still working on it,”

And, this week, a fully ‘evolved’ Obama said:

“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This is a courageous move for Obama. He leads one of the most religious countries on earth. He is facing a difficult election against an openly religious opponent. He is not an atheist – he is a Christian – and his views will not be popular with many of his religious supporters. And yet, despite the possible political consequences, he has decided to speak out for what he has come to believe is right and just.

In contrast, our own atheist Prime Minister, Julia Gillard says she opposes same-sex marriage. She confirmed today that she will not change her mind on this issue, despite Obama’s change of heart. It appears that, like the religious zealots of the fundamentalist Australian Christian Lobby, Gillard’s mind and heart are shut firmly against reason and compassion.

Unlike Obama, Gillard refuses to ‘evolve’. In fact, it appears that she has ‘de-evolved’.

When she was at university, Gillard was a staunch supporter of gay rights, as this old news clipping shows.

“If elected,” said the young Julia Gillard, “I will encourage action on women’s rights, anti-nuclear policy and homosexual rights.”

What happened?

Gillard’s objection to same-sex marriage cannot be religious. She is an atheist.

It cannot be the result of homophobia. Gillard appointed Penny Wong, an openly gay woman in a stable same-sex partnership, to the very senior cabinet position of Minister for Finance and Deregulation.

It cannot be a commitment to the ideal of traditional marriage. Gillard, herself, lives in a de-facto relationship with partner, Tim Mathieson.

Gillard has hinted that her Baptist upbringing influences her worldview. But, it was obviously not influential enough to convince her that God exists, or that living ‘in sin’ is wrong. Further, some Baptist clergy have openly spoken out in support of same-sex marriage. Gillard’s opposition is in line only with hard-line Christian fundamentalists, not with the majority of Australian Christians, or even, necessarily, Baptists.

Nor can Gillard’s stance be based on populism. The majority of Australians clearly support same-sex marriage. The Senate Inquiry into Marriage Equality received an unprecedented number of submissions and, despite the best efforts of conservative Christian lobbyists, 44,000 of the 75,000 submissions support same-sex marriage. Even the Australian Christian Lobby was forced to admit to their members that they were ‘comprehensively losing‘ the debate in the court of public opinion.

Gillard’s position cannot be based on some conception that marriage and religion are inextricably linked. Indeed, the secular nature of marriage in this country is illustrated by the fact that the majority of Australians (67 per cent in 2009) are married by civil celebrants.

Nor is her intransigence based on ALP policy. She is at odds with the majority Labor view on same-sex marriage.

Gillard has even recently conceded that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is inevitable – and still she remains opposed.

As far as I am aware, Gillard has articulated no clear argument for her opposition apart from a slightly robotic:

“My position flows from my strong conviction that the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and that should continue unchanged.”

So, one has to ask – why has Obama ‘evolved’ on this issue while Gillard seems to have ‘de-evolved’?

Political commentator Paul Barry suggests that Gillard’s opposition to same-sex marriage “is not mysterious at all to those who understand the power of conservative Catholic South Australian senator Don Farrell, widely known as ‘The Pope’.”

Farrell was one of the core group of ‘faceless’ men who conspired against Rudd to install Gillard as prime miniter back in 2010. According to former ALP deputy leader, Ralph Clarke, Farrell “controls the pre-selection directly or indirectly of every MP in South Australia. If you want to get on, you get on with Don.”

In fact, according to Wikileaks, Senator Farrell had the ‘inside dope’ on Gillard’s leadership aspirations well before that fateful night in June 2010 when she rolled Rudd. A Wikileak cable suggests that Farrell told US embassy staff as early as June 2009 that Ms Gillard was gunning for Rudd’s job. That couldn’t have been ‘common knowledge’. Could it be that Farrell and Gillard were doing deals well in advance of the 2010 coup? And was a stance against gay marriage a part of that deal?

Farrell controlled the votes from South Australia and as a former leader of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) he had tremendous influence over the votes of the union’s parliamentary wing. Votes controlled by Farrell were critical for Gillard to win the prime ministership in the party room. It’s not inconceivable that his support came at a price.

Gillard was never a member of the extreme right faction of the Labor party. She began her political career as part of Labor’s Socialist Left faction and later migrated to the centre. Yet now there are many, including Australian Marriage Equality national convenor, Alex Greenwich, who say that Gillard “appears to be captive of the extreme right of the Labor Party led by SDA union boss Joe de Bruyn”.

De Bruyn opposed the Rudd spill in 2010. But, when Gillard’s leadership position was challenged earlier this year, he supported Gillard. Is it possible that a commitment not to support same-sex marriage was part of some quiet back-room deal forged between Gillard, de Bruyn and Farrell?

If this is the case – and I freely admit this is mere speculation – it is likely that the ‘deal’ was based on de Bruyns personal power given that even his own union, the SDA, don’t seem to support his stance on gay marriage. Just this month, SDA Members for Equality spokesman Duncan Hart said he believes that most SDA members don’t agree with de Bruyn’s position.

“This is especially the case amongst retail workers, who are predominantly young and urban,” said Hart.

“It is farcical that our union leadership is so out of touch with members’ attitudes.”

And in supporting de Bruyn’s and Farrell’s view, Gillard has put herself at odds with the powerful Australian Workers’ Union. Prior to this year’s ALP conference, AWU leader Paul Howes described Labor’s opposition to gay marriage as “indefensible”. Even in terms of ‘placating the unions’ Gillard’s position makes no sense.

At the ALP’s National Conference in December last year, de Bruyn was not even able to hold his own right wing faction together on the issue of same-sex marriage. De Bruyn was booed and jeered by other party members as he spoke out against same-sex marriage at the conference.

Gillard’s continued opposition to same-sex marriage is contrary to the views of the majority of Australians, her own party, the majority of Australian Christians, the president of the United States, the new French president, Francois Hollande and even conservative British prime minister David Cameron. Her intransigence makes no sense in terms of her religious beliefs, her lifestyle choice or her previous passionate support for gay rights. Neither does it make political sense, given the widespread public support for legislative change.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Gillard sold out Australia’s queer community as part of a back room deal for political power. The only thing that makes sense to me is that Gillard is personally in debt to Farrell and de Bruyn and relies on their continuing support to shore up her increasingly shaky hold on the prime ministership.

How secular is a nation in which the prime minister is held captive to fundamentalist Catholic dogma? How democratic is this country when two men appear to control the prime minister’s stance on an issue which is so central to notions of justice, equality and human rights?

What does it say about the strength of our prime minister’s personal ethics if, in exchange for political power, she agreed to act as a ventriloquist’s dummy for religious zealots whose views represent neither her own beliefs nor those of the majority of her party?

Perhaps Gillard should consider that evolution favours those who can best adapt to changing environments. She, herself, has conceded that the political environment has changed with respect to same-sex marriage. And yet, it seems, while nimbler politicians are evolving, she has chosen to throw her lot in with dinosaurs like de Bruyn and Farrell – and we know how evolution deals with dinosaurs.

Chrys Stevenson

To help put pressure on the PM to change her position on same-sex marriage, please consider signing this petition, asking her to show the same kind of courageous leadership as Barack Obama.

Julia Gillard show leadership like Obama has – support #ISupportSameSexMarriage

Update 11 May 2012:  Crikey’s Jeremy Sear has now taken up this issue, asking the Canberra press gallery to start asking some of the questions raised in this post.