Can I Just Say…

Reflections of a roving mind
About Me

Hi there - welcome to my blog!

I'm a 30-something Sydneysider embarking on blogging for the first time. My blog ranges from relationships and food to politics and entertainment. The unifying feature of the posts is that they are related to things I'm interested in and care about. I'm also very curious about other people's perspectives - enjoy!

My Other Sites
Facebook
Contributors
Archive
2011 (17)
2010 (11)
 

A Sunday spot

On the weekend, my boyfriend and I got right out of the Surry Hills 'hood and went down to Watson's Bay. For those of you from outside Sydney, this is the final major place on the south side of the harbour, just before it meets the Pacific Ocean.

The day was glorious, with plenty of sunshine, that was only driven away later in the afternoon by some clouds and cooler winds. Watson's Bay is a Sydney favourite for many reasons. There is the beautiful Gap Park, which sits on the ocean side of the peninsula, and affords beautiful views of the craggy sand-stone-cliffs, atop the expansive and seemingly-infinite ocean below. At this time of the year, it is covered in native spring flowers, of varying colours - reds, yellows, purples and more - gorgeous.

As we are not the most high-octane of hikers,  we did a short'ish walk and then headed to the main park, which runs down to Sydney Harbour. This is another reason for its favoured-status. The park is large enough to have families kicking around a football, people spread out on pic-nic rugs and still plenty of space. All of this positioned with wonderful views across the water of native bush, leading onto the slightly more distant city skyline.  For first time visitors like my boyfriend, and those who have been before like me, it is a majestic sight. 

Before plonking ourselves on our picnic blanket, I told my boyfriend that we had to have the traditional Watson's Bay lunch - takeaway fish and chips from Doyle's. Doyle's has been around for over a century - though not sure if it's been in that same location - and is renowned for its fish and chips. I must confess wariness when I suggested it, as I thought it might be one of those over-priced tourist-spots, whose true hey-day is well in the past. Am glad to say that this is not the case - the food was very tasty. With our fish and chips in hand - and fortunately not in the stomachs of the very persistent local sea-gulls - we basked in the light, and beautiful surrounds. We read, chatted, listened to music, watched the blue sky... is this what it's all about?

I realised that much as I love many other places, Sydney does, and always will, hold an unrivalled and special place in my heart. The contrast between the natural beauty, whether it be cliffs, ocean, harbour or bush, and the buzzing and diverse human-construct that is the city, with its abundance of cultural and civic stimulations, is magical. Unlike many large cities, who seem to have completely dominated or subdued their natural environment, that is not the case in Sydney. Her green spaces are visceral beings, her waterways maintain their own course - they are timeless. They are the anchors which stand firm against the waves and tides of human activity, the hum of daily life. This rich contrast invigorates, and makes Sydney Sydney.  

Posted by Michael 
 

Give me sex over violence any day!

Sex and violence are two topics that tend to generate a lot of heat. It's understandable from a sociological perspective given they have been forces central to our evolution and are in many ways innate to us. They are also phenomena that most societies and governments have tried to control; for good and not-so-good reasons. Case in point are our censorship laws, part of which has recently been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee. The committee's focus included the sexualisation of children, and you certainly won't get an argument out of me about the excess sexualisation of children through advertising. The committee also focussed on sexual images available to adults, lamenting the fact that films with R18+ ratings which should generally only simulate sex, in fact sometimes show the real thing. Later, it goes on to say that real sex, currently permitted in X18+, should be completely banned. However, as Sydney Morning Herald journalist Tim Dick (pardon the pun :) stated in his recent article:

for the minority of adults who do want it (real sex), we not only say they cannot have it, but that it is a criminal offence to sell it in most of the country. X18+ is far from anything goes. No sexual violence, no fetish, nothing demeaning to anyone involved. It allows for consensual, run-of-the-mill sex, the activity which gave life to the vast majority of us....

The rule for violence in an R18+ film? ''Violence is permitted.'' Not sexual violence, but anything else goes. So sadistic, realistic, serial killing like that inWolf Creek is fine, but show real rumpy pumpy and we run for the hills.

Mr Dick puts in a nutshell what to me is totally crazy. Consensual see, available with the X18+ classification is currently illegal in most of the country - save Fyshwick and the Northern Territory. But why? Real consensual sex is how humans connect with their intimate, romantic partners - plus of course how humans tend to produce babies... and this should be banned from the adult eyes??? Meanwhile, violence of the most grotesque kind - with the exception of the sexual of course - is made accessible to any adult. That our esteemed Senate committee is happy to maintain this anachronism seems nuts. Have I missed something or are things really  very topsy-turvy?

I actually think that my thoughts are not that out of kilter from the average. When one of the polls published in the Saturday 2 July Sydney Morning Herald News Review asked "On stage and screen, is real sex or scenes of violence more concerning to you?", 68.2% of the 1460 respondents said Scenes of Violence were, while only 11.5% said Real Sex was - the remaining 16.6% saying neither. It seems to me that the censorship regime has a bit of a sexual obsession going on (maybe some prudish, Victorian hang-over), that seems to be blinding it to what are majority community concerns. In my mind, portrayals of violence should indeed by scrutinised, but adult Australians should not be restricted from accessing images of real, consensual, run-of-the-mill sex. This approach may engender a healthier outlook for our society overall, one which is sex-positive, while on the other hand questions the wide-spread messages of destructive violence. 

Posted by Michael 
 

Go Back To Where You Came From

Wow, I've had more discussions in the past week about refugees than I have had for many years. For those of you who don't know, this has been due to the documentary series recently broadcast on SBS Go Back To Where You Came From - it was fascinating, moving and very well made! You can read a lot more about it on the SBS website, but basically the documentary  showed 6 Australian with strident (mainly anti) refugee views, tracing the steps taken by real refugees who now live in Australia. The twist is that they do the journey in reverse, starting at the homes of where the refugees now live, going to the detention centres, then overseas to Malaysia where refugees wait before they journey to Australia, and finally to the home-regions, from where the refugees originate. 

If you missed seeing it a few weeks ago, you can watch it on the website - as I did. I highly recommend it because, without giving any detail away, you witness  a significant shift in the views of many of the participants, as they stand in the shoes of refugees, hear about the experiences that lead them to flee their home countries, and observe the trying conditions on their journey for asylum. 

I enjoyed watching the program so much for three main reasons. First, I learnt a lot more about the reality of the experiences of refugees. For example, when the participants go to the UN refugee camp in Kenya, it is clear that refugees there are not safe, as local people threaten the refugees with weapons for their food - leaving the refugees hungry and scared. Also, the experience of refugees waiting in intermediate countries, such as Malaysia, is anything but stable. Though they've managed to flee their home countries, they are usually not entitled to reside in Malaysia, and therefore cannot earn money, access healthcare, and their children are virtual prisoners within their over-crowded apartments. 

Second, I understood better the reasons why the participants in the program were hostile or unsympathetic to refugees, and what factors can open people's hearts and minds. Attitudes changed primarily after the participants heard the refugees describe their traumatic refugee journeys, as well as when the participants experienced the refugees' generosity, who despite having very little materially, opened up their hearts and homes. This openness and humanity touched many of the participants and ultimately lead them to express a more compassionate view of refugees. 

Third and finally, I enjoyed the program because despite the fact that the majority of the participants initially had such strident anti-refugee views, they were willing to place themselves in a situation in which they were exposed and educated to the realities of the refugee experience, demonstrating an admirable open-mindedness. It exemplifies how Australian society should approach the refugee issue, guided by the facts and realities of the refugee experience. It also makes plain the fact that despite the existence of the limited Refugee system available to those who can actually access it, the system is slow, unsafe and ultimately, inadequate for processing the millions of people seeking asylum. As Roderick stated (the Young Liberal Vice-president during the filming of the Go Back To Where You Came From  - the Response, that I attended the SBS studios for), Australia needs to increase the official number of refugees it accepts. If Australia and other countries who could afford to, accepted more refugees, along with better-resourcing and safer processing of refugee applications, there would be much reduced incentive for people seeking asylum to risk their lives taking unsafe journeys across oceans. This approach addressing the overall picture, rather than blaming the asylum-seekers with statement like 'Turn Back the Boats', is the way the Australian refugee debate should proceed. 

Posted by Michael 
 

Sydney Film Festival 2011 - Part 2

Since my last posting we've seen another 11 films, and so I'm writing about my top 5 films for the second half of the festival - starting with my 5th favourite and ending with my number one - one of the best films I've ever seen!

5) Tomboy
This charming French film is about a young girl, Laure, who is trying to work out how to express her gender-identity.  When her family arrive in a new town, she decides to pass herself off as a boy. The world of summer holidays, with Laure and the local kids playing games and generally having fun, was very evocatively created.The film crescendos when Laure's secret gets out and concludes with a satisfying end.  The close relationship between Laure and her younger sister is is very sweet, and I think rings true for anyone who has had a close relationship with a sibling - the secrets from parents, the looking out for each other. The way Laure struggles to establish her own identity is sensitively crafted, and createsa  very touching story, tinged with ambivalence. The ensemble cast of children was excellent, which combined with lovely cinematography, formed a charming story.

This amazing film, involving almost no dialogue, is a beautiful and rich experience. It traces several stories; an old man, a baby goat, and a tall pine tree - exploring the interconnection between all life. The cinematography in the mountains of Calabria, Italy, is gorgeous and the frequent shots of the country-side and its inhabitants, is calming and breathtaking. This unconventional film is highly rewarding and was a real surprise for me.

This was a funny and interesting film about 2 people living in neighbouring buildings in the heart of Buenos Aires, but whose lives remain largely separate. Both are single, doing the dating scene, while working in their jobs; going through the day-to-day activities of late 20-somethings from any country. Apart from these two human protagonists, there is the third: the city of Buenos Aires itself. There are great images of the city's buildings and street-scapes, accompanied by interesting reflections on the city's architecture and what it says about the city. It is a well-paced film that engages you to the very last scene. Great film! 

2) Amador
This charming film fuses the gritty reality of migrant life in Spain, with some very entertaining black humour - together creating a very touching and enjoyable story. The protagonist, Marcela, is pregnant and is forced by economic circumstance to take a job looking after an old man who can no longer care for himself. The film explores how people, in many different circumstances, do the best they can to make ends meet - with varying degrees of compromise involved. The motif in this film of flowers is very nicely woven through the film. The excellent cast, including the outstanding performance of the lead, create a thoroughly satisfying cinematic experience. 

Oh my God - this was a sublime film that was made with such a huge heart, moving the audience continually from tears to laugher to ear-to-ear smiles. 
The story is of a group of kids, led by manager Dudu - a charming 12 year-old boy, who work their way down from Rwanda to South Africa so that Dudu's talent, soccer fanatic Fabric, can be part of the World Cup. On this road-trip, the friends encounter some testing times, from gun-totting bandits, to dealing with an HIV diagnosis. The film, brilliantly and sensitively, strikes the perfect balance in each of these situations - avoiding either hitting you over the head with gravity of the circumstances, while avoiding frivolous depictions of what are serious day-to-day realities for many children in Africa.  
The five main children stars are all outstanding and the bond that they - Africa United - form is the films most moving aspect. If you see only one film this year, make it this one - a tour de force!

 
Well, it's time to sign off now, 12 days and 22 films after the opening of 58th Sydney Film Festival. I have that wistful feeling when you know that something very special is over, but at the same time feel also a deep satisfaction derived from the very rewarding films. Cinema can really 
transport 
you anywhere, and provide a window for you into the worlds that others inhabit, allowing you to walk, even if only for a short time, in their shoes - a truly magic experience. Counting down now to the next Sydney Film Festival...  

Posted by Michael 
 

Sydney Film Festival 2011 - part 1

The 57th Sydney Film Festival kicked off on Wednesday evening with the screening of 'Hanna', a thriller starring our own Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana. For a thriller, it was actually was quite good - especially given that thrillers genrewise are my last choice. This year is a really a mammoth year for us - we're seeing 22 films, including the opening and closing nights - kind of crazy I know! So far, we've seen 10 (and we haven't got fired from our day jobs... yet!) and so thought I'd report on my top 5 picks for this first half of the festival - in reverse order from 5th to 1st. Would love to also hear from anyone out there on films you've seen. 

5) Khodorkovsky - This was a German documentary about the once powerful, now gaoled, Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky. It very clearly explored the life of the businessman, interweaving interviews with key personalities, with some fantastic animations that told important parts of his story. In a nutshell,  Khodorkovsky was put in prison in 2003, under the pretext that he had failed to pay some taxes. However, the film's purpose was to explore what might have been the real reasons behind his being arrested. The most likely explanation is that he pissed off Vladamir Putin, the then President (now Prime-minister - that's the way it seems to roll in Russia) by supporting opposition figures. It appears that democracy is really a relative term, as these kind of political arrests demonstrate. 

The documentary was really very revealing about what life is like in a country in which the President, while popularly elected, is not constrained by other features of a democratic state - ie that individuals are prosecuted only at the behest of the police or prosecutorial authorities rather than the President, and that people are innocent until proven guilty. I unreservedly recommend this fascinating doco. 

Ok, a change of time and place to a forrest in Denmark. And I should mention that this is an animation. This was a charming children's film, but in fact had a lot in it for any adult, which the majority adult audience as the session definitely would attest to. It tells the story of a mythical, great bear that everyone believes to be a frightening beast. The two protagonists, a brother and sister, chance upon his world and the films follows their experiences with him. It's a charming, moving and very sweet film. It was enhanced by the fact that due to technical difficulties, the audio was in Danish, accompanied by English subtitles - making you feel like you really were in a truly enchanting and different place. 

This American doco followed the process of translating, 'Everyone Love Rayomond' to Russia - a truly fascinating cross-cultural journey. The host of the documentary  Phil Rosenthal - also the creator of the TV series  - reveals the extreme challenges faced by taking a comedy from one culture, and trying to successfully translate it to a new one. The challenges involved in working with Russian crew and cast, who often didn't find funny what the Americans did (and vice-versa), was a recurring theme - the ways they eventually bridged some of their gaps is very interesting.  

On top of this, Phil Rosenthal is a highly amusing, neurotic guy, whose witty reflections on the translation process are hilarious, fun and endlessly captivating - this film is a real hoot!

So, I wasn't expecting that much from this film as it was on my list of films I thought I might decide to see if any of the other films I really wanted to see were sold out. As it turned out though, it was just absolutely outstanding. It's the story of 3 brothers who live together in rural Tennesse in the US, newly reunited after the after 18 year absence of one of them . They are three very different characters, and there is great comedy in how they interact with each other. It mixes many genres, including thriller, drama, quirkiness (I'm not sure that's really a genre... oh well) and black comedy. It's really touching at times, hilarious and engaging from the first shot to the last. 

I highly recommend seeing this film if you're keen to see something different, original and that really speaks to you from the heart.  

This film was the first of the 22that I was really excited about. It is a very clever, moving story about  a Spanish film crew who go to Bolivia to make a movie about the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas and how the indigenous people were treated (generally appallingly) after that. At the same time as this film is being made, there is a real life drama going on with the locals protesting against the privatisation of the water supply in the area - which is causing for them serious problems with accessing water. 

The parallel stories are brilliantly interwoven and the plight of the indigenous peoples of the Americas over the last 500 years of colonisation is very strongly portrayed, leaving you in no doubt that there are still major human rights issues to resolve. The film itself is beautifully crafted, with wonderful cinematography and great drama. It stars the ever-handsome Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal who is strong as always, along with other strong leads. I very highly recommend this film  as I think it will move you, intrigue you, and make you reflect; it is a truly beautiful film.  

Posted by Michael 
 

Politics of Hypocrisy: Part Deux

Imagine a world, where all citizens could really have their voices heard and their views acted on by their elected politicians. That certainly doesn't describe the current state of Australian politics when it comes to the global warming. In the past, though, things were a bit different. In early 2008, it seemed like no-brainer that the Labor government, elected on the back of overhwhelming support for a price on carbon, would bring in laws that would start to make the Australian economy and way of life, less carbon-polluting. Memories!!!

Well, that all seems a long time ago. The latest carbon price policy from the Government, the Carbon Tax, is opposed point-blank by the opposition, while industry, who has had years to factor in a carbon price, is doing its best to scuttle anything that may harm their profits. We hear from wealthy mining baroness, Gina Rinehart, that not only is she opposed to the Carbon Tax, she wants to know where the voices of other business leaders are in also opposing the tax. Yet when Cate Blanchett, fronts a public ad encouraging Australians to get behind the Carbon Tax, we get the leader of the Opposition, the perpetual-opposer lambasting her for publicly expressing her views; no such reprimand, unsurprisingly, when Gina Rinehart tells Australia what to do. 

The attack on Blanchett occurred because her views didn't accord with the Opposition's and even more so, because in the ad the focus was on the big picture - the threats posed by global warming and the opportunity for the country to do something to prevent it. This doesn't fit with the Abbott's perpetual oppositionism, whose main objective is to stir fear and insecurity about the effect of a Carbon Tax. This tactic, as anyone who thinks twice about his tactics know, is the vehicle he's hoping will deliver him the prime-ministership. He wants to sow such fear that public will vote against any changes proposed by the government. The casualty of this approach, unfortunately, is Australia's environmentally and economically sustainable future. In his oppositionist world, Australia will keep its head firmly buried in the sand, ignoring both the overwhelming scientific consensus in support of human-caused global warming, and the strong economic opportunities that leading economists such as Ross Garnaut and Ross Gittins have highlighted in pricing carbon. 

His criticism of Blanchett, of course, playing the woman, not the issue. Rather than dealing with environmental and economic merits of the ad, he attacked her as a rich person who shouldn't argue for a tax which won't really hit her. But his selective argument ignores the crucial fact that Australians who are on low-incomes will receive compensation under the Government's plan - to the extent that they may in fact be better off as a result of the compensation payments with some dollars left in their pockets. And Blanchett made clear that her support was contingent on this compensation being provided to the needy. 

What we actually have here is Blanchett saying that she supports the Carbon Tax for the greater good of making the Australian economy less carbon-polluting, despite the fact that she won't qualify for compensation and so it will cost her personally - putting her money where he mouths is. Meanwhile, people like Gina Rinehart and Tony Abbott, attack the Carbon Tax and the right of public figures to speak out in support of it, hiding behind claims of concern for the cost of living pressures on low-income Australians - conveniently ignoring the extensive compensation that will provided. Unsurprisingly, you don't hear Abbott arguing for compensation to low-income households for existing energy prices that have already flowed from costs of upgrading their infrastructure in the absence of a clear energy policy, including carbon price - a direct result of Abbott's opposition to the ETS. It seems that Abbot's compassion for low-income Australians is a selective one, based on when it fits with his opportunism and oppositionism, as opposed to when it's for the public good. Let's hope the Australian public don't fall prey to his faux compassion and misleading economic arguments, or we'll all be much the worse for it - rich and poor, Labor and Liberal.

Posted by Michael 
 

Sydney Writers' Festival 2011

The past week was packed full of interesting talks at the Sydney Writers' Festival 2011, culminating with the final two days last weekend. It is located at Walsh Bay, just west of the Sydney Harbour bridge, and in the glorious, autumn sun over the weekend, we could luxuriate in the festival's vibrance and energy. This annual festival is the world's third largest with nearly 300 writers in over 300 events. As usual, we weren't able to get to all the talks we were interested in, though fortunately some of the best are available through the ABC radio website. All the ones we did get to were very worthwhile, with the following being my highlights.

Howard Jacobsen, author of The Finkler Question, and winner of the 2010 Man Booker Prize was by far and away the most amusing and interesting speaker. His book, which I confess I haven't yet read, is about 3 men in London, 2 of whom are Jewish - like Howard Jacobsen - who discuss life in a comedic manner. According to my boyfriend who has read it, every page is witty and has at least one memorable line, a la Oscar Wilde. Suffice to say it's top of my list to read as my next fiction. The sessions that we heard him speak were captivating as Howard Jacobsen is such a fantastic raconteur and has the perfect balance of self-confidence and self-effacement to keep you captivated by his story-telling. He talked about finding later in life his comfort in his Jewish 'voice', after a period of not being sure what his voice was. He also gave a really fascinating description on why he loves comedic fiction. He pointed out the comedy, in Greek times for example, was the opposite of tragedy, in that it was focussed on the basics of life, such as sex and bodily functions. In the session entitled 'Return of the Wry',  which looked at the success of a comedic-fiction, he talked about how anything can be the subject of humour, including something as serious as the Holocaust. He said this because comedy for him is not about making light of something serious, but rather being to deal with things that are of such importance that they often can't be dealt with in any other way. 

Another favourite was AC Grayling, who has just published a tome of a book - The Good Book. AC Grayling is a professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and The Good Book is a secular Bible distilling the wisdom of the great non-religious traditions as a guide for life. The writers her included are from over many centuries and diverse parts of the world, including such well known names as Plato, Socrates, Confucius and Mill. His idea, 30 years from its first inception, was to provide a reference for atheist and religious people alike, to read the views of great humanist philosophers on the key existential human question of how to live life. Interestingly, he modelled the structure on the King James Bible, which coincidentally celebrates its 400 years of publication this year, though his admiration for its form should in no way be confused for admiration of its substance! He made it quite clear that he does not have a much time for traditional (monotheistic) religions. He explained that The Good Book has no footnotes because he believes that the quotes he included stand on merit alone, and thus who wrote them is of no consequence. I noticed that all the names of philosophers who he had included were men, so I asked in question time what fraction were women. He said that very very few were and that her regretted this. I thought this interesting, as the criticism often directed at the the Bible and Koran is that they were written almost entirely by men. He explained that unfortunately women regrettably were written out of history, and as a result he had few women philosophers to quote. 

My final favourite was the session with David Mitchell and Daniel Swift on what it's like to write novels set in the past. Daniel's traces his grandfather's life, who was a bomber in the UK Royal Air Force in World War Two. David Mitchell's, called The Thousand Autums of Jacob de Zoet, is set in 1799 on an island off the Japanese coast, where the Dutch are permitted to trade from. The authors described the hard research they had to do, such as learning about the political and historical dynamics of the different countries at the time they set they book, as well as the soft research. David Mitchell's example of soft research was when he wanted to describe a character shaving, and so had to research when shaving cream came into existence, when soap did back and other practicalities. They also talked about how they didn't feel they were in a position to judge the rights or wrongs of what characters did during the period in which their novels were set. I asked them whether they felt that it would be the same if their novels were set currently. Both said that they personally was still refrain from judging the rights or wrongs of their characters, as writing fiction for them was just about inhabiting someone else's world. However, David Mitchell said that if another author were to want to judge their characters, that would be fine as each other should be able to make their own choice. 

One other one sessions which was very moving because of the individual stories, was the that with Ingrid Betancourt and Izzeldin Abuelaish. Ingrid Betancourt wrote her book in French because her native Spanish reminded her too much of her Colombian ordeal. Izzeldin Abuelaish wrote his memoir following the death of his three daughters not in Arabic or Hebrew, but English. They both described how they dealt with traumas in their lives, and how important talking and language were to their healing. 

The festival was thoroughly satisfying, and I left there with a renewed passion for writing and reading. The idea I found the most profound, yet simple, is that reading fiction is so important, not only because it's fun and good for language skills, but because it is the the best way of teaching empathy towards others. Reading is worthwhile therefore, for every one, ever where, in every time. 

Posted by Michael 
 

Politics of hypocrisy

While I've been avoiding paying much attention to federal politics in Australia of late, mainly due to the cheap sensationalism of Tony Abbot and the Labor party's inability to articulate the reasons for taking actions when in the public interest, I've been particularly bothered by some of the commentary criticising the budget that's just been handed down.

The line from the the Liberal party goes that the Government can't be trusted to install set-up boxes as they're presided over supposedly economically wasteful "pink batts" program (N.B. I am not referring to any of the safety issues as the recent criticism from the Opposition has only been over the economics). So let's, for argument sake, assume that there was wastage when some "pink batts" were installed, we still need to get some context about the context in which the pink batts progam was implemented. First, it was during the early stages of the global financial crisis, when there were fears that our economy was going to shut down - as indeed happened in the US and Europe, and so the government wanted to spend money to avoid any freeze. Second, spending it on insulating homes seemed like a very reasonable project, as it has the potential to save energy costs - good news for consumers and the environment. So, this project was introduced (along with other government spending) with the aim of keeping the economy moving, while at the same time, providing environmental and individual financial benefits.

At the same time, Liberal party, while in government, was happy to give tax breaks to owner's of four wheel drives have been taxed at a lower rate than other vehicles - for no benefit to community - just to 'help-out' well-off Australians who choose to drive higher petrol-consuming vehicles. It also argued against the mining sector paying the original 40% mining tax, emboldening the miners to take on the government prior the last election. This lead, ultimately, to the government backing down, and the Australian people missing out on 60 Billion dollars in tax revenue. It seems that making the rich richer is their only guiding principle. They may pretend to care about ensuring the Commonwealth receives more income and avoids wastage, but their actions show that is of no real concern. 

The opposition's hysteria over the cost of the proposed set-top boxes, which will cost $308 million strikes me as blatantly hypocritical. First, the set-top boxes actually provide an important benefit to low-income pensioners, which they may otherwise miss out on. This is completely unlike the tax-breaks for the wealthy that the Liberal party has consistently supported. The hypocrisy is particularly galling, though, when you consider how Mr Abbot has been complicit in the denial of financial revenue to the Commonwealth from the original mining tax, the value of which was 120 times that of installing the set-top boxes!!! This hypocrisy is no surprise in the world of politics that Tony Abbot thrives in. Just as long as no one is fooled that this has anything to do with principle of protecting the public purse, or putting first the best interests of the Australian public!  

Posted by Michael 
 

From Camp to Queer

I just recently finished a very good read of 'From Camp to Queer' - a book about gay Australian history, from the beginning of gay liberation in the 1970s to the 1990s. I found it a fascinating read, and it put into context many aspects of Australian gay culture and filled in a few gaps. Before I get to some of my more specific observations about the Australian gay history, one the things I kept thinking about when I read the book was how incredible it was that at 31 years of age, I was for the first time reading a real account of Australia's gay community! (By the way, by gay, I am using it in its inclusive form, covering men, women, homo and bi etc. If you read the book, you get an appreciation of the strident beliefs that different people have held over the years about different terms of identification, such as gay, homosexual, lesbian, queer - which have often been used, rejected, and then sometimes resurfaced. Anyway - I digress.)

And I hazard a guess that I am not the only adult gay Australian not to have ever read a gay history book. This is such a big gap and it made me think about the importance of knowing stories, history, and understanding what went before us, in order to better understand who we are and have confidence about ourselves. Unlike most other minority groups, gay people tend not to know their own history... for a number of reasons. First, we don't have parents reinforcing our minority identity - as say, Jewish, or Aboriginal tend to. Also, the fact that there is a gay history has really only been publicly acknowledged, and thus recognised as valid and real since the 1960's at the earliest. So, I guess other groups have a head-start on queers with that. We have a bit of catching up to do, and books like 'From Camp to Queer' are a great way of doing that.

So, in terms of what the book's focus it traces how within the context of the feminist, Afro-American, and Aboriginal rights revolutions, grew the first gay liberation movements. What is interesting to me, is how groups within the gay world - often corresponding to what seem to be different generations - had different approaches and philosophies about what it meant to be equal members of Australian society. Some wanted to be left alone in their gay enclaves, and not attract attention of broader, often-hostile homophobic Australia. Others, thought that gay law reform was the way to go in achieving equality, and this approach can still be seen in the activities of the mainstream gay organisations today, including groups like the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. Others, sought a more radical re-imagining of society, so that no one was required to fit into any fixed relationship models. They would probably reject equalising law such as marriage, for example, as they reject marriage out of hand as an institution - for queers or straights. What struck me is what a rigid, binary view many people held. By that, I mean that they felt you had to choose one approach or the other, rather than recognising the importance of a variety of options to cater to the diversity within the queer world.

Unfortunately, the exclusivist, narrow view often seemed to result in people sometimes being told that their way of being gay/lesbian was not valid and this causes serious harm to the well being and self-esteem of some people. That's often the fate, it seems, of a minority fighting for acceptance - intolerance within the minority group of dissenting views which don't tow the line. Hopefully things are getting a bit more open-minded, and within the gay world, there is room for those who believe, for example, that we should fight for the right to marry and those who aren't interested in it as an institution. To fail to recognise that we're at least as diverse, if not more so, than non-queer Australians and thus an acceptance of many philosophies should prevail, is incredibly short-sighted and not good for the well-being of Queer Australians.

Posted by Michael 
 

Rights and Wrongs of Discrimination

My boyfriend sent me a link to an article by the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins entitled "Should employers be blind to private beliefs". The article is about whether it is acceptable to reject someone for a job based on their religious beliefs. The instance in the article was of a of guy called Martin Gaskell who was rejected for the position of Director of a new university observatory at the University of Kentucky. He sued the university on grounds of religious discrimination; Mr Gaskell is a creationist astronomer. The university has now settled paying him $125,000, while declining to admit wrongdoing.

The likely reasoning behind the University settling was their belief that the Court would find that the university had unfairly discriminated against Mr Gaskell by rejecting him for the job - so the university decided to deal with the situation out of court without admitting wrongdoing. That led my boyfriend to ask me if I thought that this position was fair? (I, by the way, am not an atheist - I have Jewish beliefs; my boyfriend on the other hand, is an atheist.) My belief (pardon the usage :) is that the law in such a situation should not deem the University guilty of unfairly discriminating. Certainly, they appear to have discriminated against Mr Gaskell based on his religious views, but I don't believe that this is unfair. In my opinion, the world of science has particular rules and philosophies that underpin it - much like religions, political systems etc. I think if someone wishes to work within such a world, their personal beliefs should ideally accord with the system's essential tenets, or at the very least not conflict with them. It seems that someone who believes that the world was created approximately 6000 years ago, is putting the preponderance of scientific weight that the earth is billions of years old to the side, in favour of their religious beliefs. In these circumstances, the university should be able to reject a person for employment - especially where they will be involved in teaching, research and other core university activities. The university should not have to fear prosecution in rejecting a candidate like Mr Gaskell just because his views are based on religious convictions, when these views do not accord with the university and its scientific values.  

My boyfriend decided (ironically :) to play Devils' advocate, arguing that society shouldn't discriminate in relation to employment on any grounds. I wondered, is this the only principled position? I thought about it, and then responded that society does already discriminate, and it does so in a much more pernicious way and this is explicitly sanctioned by the law. What I am talking about is the fact that religious organisations are permitted to hire and fire staff based on the sexual behaviours and/or identities. As the recent Sydney Morning Herald article by David Marr entitled "Faiths rule on sex form staffroom to bedroom" highlights, some Churches, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim organisations discriminate against potential or actual employees based on their sexuality or sexual behaviours. This discrimination is explicitly permitted by law; this discrimination is treated as an exception to general anti-discrimination laws that would otherwise prohibit such behaviour.

I believe that the discrimination here is of a more serious type, as someone's sexuality is not a choice nor a belief that they choose; rather it is an essential part of their being. Unlike a scientist whose belief in creationism runs in direct opposition to the scientific approach and thus makes their employment in universities questionable, there is nothing inherently contradictory about being gay, and working in a religious organisation, as say a secretary. Yet the law, and society more broadly, currently permits and abets this discrimination. 

This privileging of religious organisations so that they may discriminate when they are the employer, while at the same time protecting religious adherents from discrimination as employees, seems to me to be wanting to have it both ways. Will religion continue be treated above the law, while at the same time demanding its protection? This unfair, and exceptional preferencing of (conservative) religious sensibilities over other, equally important sensibilities, such as sexuality or gender is unacceptable in a democracy where everyone should be equal before the law. 

Posted by Michael