3 January 2009

What is wrong with these article headlines in the Fairfax media? To save you guessing, we will provide the answer! WIDOWER is the word which is incorrect and hypocritical of the media and the government in dealing with this issue.

The use of the word WIDOWER implies marriage, and the government when it was in opposition and currently, together with the current opposition when it was in government passed legislation which states that "marriage is between a man and a woman only" and for all time!

Now the government is talking about marriage-like arrangements in its instructions to Centrelink to pursue same-sex people living together in a residence and being de facto couples. The hypocrisy is a disgrace and needs to be exposed as much as possible. That is what these web pages will endeavour to do.

Article in the Sydney Morning Herald - also in The Age with the heading:

Pension fight win for gay war widower:

Edward Young … "What I wanted was to take on the little man, Howard, and fight."

Edward Young has finally proved he is entitled to a war pension, writes Jonathan Dart. Every so often, Edward Young sits on the couch in his apartment and closes his eyes. "And then I just pretend I'm not here any more," he says.

It has been 10 years since his partner, Larry Cains, died. They met in London in 1960 - he, a model, was introduced to Mr Cains, a photographer who had served with the Australian Army in Borneo during World War II.

"He was desperately handsome," Mr Young said. "We spent two weeks together and I told him I wanted to spend my life with him."

Now, after a decade of fighting to have the law recognise his and Mr Cains's love as equal, the Sydneysider will soon become the country's first recognised gay war widower. Laws passed in November mean that partners in gay relationships with serving and retired soldiers will, for the first time, be allowed to claim pensions - opening the door for the so-called "forgotten people" of our military heritage and allowing for more people to make claims that must be paid out.

The decision will end a long-winded battle for Mr Young that began in a small inner-city law office, when he applied for a pension only to find the Veterans' Entitlements Act limited the definition of "couple". Under the old law, his 38 years with Mr Cains were invalid because he could not prove he was "living with a member of the opposite sex".

Having lived through a time when discrimination against gay men was rife, Mr Young said the wording still jolted him. "I didn't really need the pension," he said. "I didn't even really want it. What I wanted was to take on the little man, [the former prime minister John] Howard, and fight."

Mr Young took his claim to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The case dragged on for years.

"I wanted a decision that wouldn't just apply to my own circumstances," he said. "What I wanted was something that would apply right across the board. I wanted something that would say that, yes, there was discrimination and it didn't just apply to me. It applied to all facets of our law."

In September 2003 the UN concluded Australia had breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Mr Young was "entitled to an effective remedy, including the reconsideration of his pension application without discrimination based on his sex or sexual orientation".

But the victory was short-lived. Although the decision was used as a reference point in other countries to implement anti-discrimination laws, the Howard government held out on reviewing Mr Young's case. As late as November 2007, the UN high commissioner asked the government to clarify whether it would review its laws. A spokeswoman for the Veterans' Affairs Minister, Alan Griffin, said yesterday the new laws would apply to Mr Young and take effect in July.

"People such as Mr Young will not be denied a war widow or widower's pension on the basis of a same-sex relationship," she said. "We would encourage anyone who was (or is) in a same-sex relationship who wishes to make a claim to the department to do so after that date."

The last jolt in his struggle came this week when Mr Young applied for his war pension one last time before the legislation changes.

He received the familiar pro forma rejection letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs informing him he did not qualify for the pension: "But I don't mind waiting another six months," he said. "The laws have been changed; we've won now. I've been waiting 10 years."

6 January 2009

The following letter was sent to MCV, suggesting that they may like to publish it as a carbon copy (cc). The magazine edited it and published their edited version. The letter is shown below in full and the edited items are shown in blue:

The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009.
From: Kendall Lovett,
Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (LGS) Melbourne,
PO Box 1675, Preston South Vic. 3072.

Dear Minister,

The members of this group have had time to consider some of the consequences of the recent change of legislative status, to take effect on 1st July 2009, for same-sex couples who are already receiving age or disability pensions.

The government has gone to some length to inform us that, with this legislation, it has removed same-sex discrimination from a wide range of Commonwealth laws. That may well be so on paper but as far as pensions are concerned the Rudd government has just added its own new brand of discrimination against us.

Every significant change to social security laws passed in the last 15 years has included a ‘grandfather’ clause to minimise harsh consequences for those already in the system (Adele Horin, SMH 6.12.08). Why wasn’t there a grandfather in this legislative change, for lesbians and gays? It looks as though it may well have been intentional to let us know that our relationships aren’t really in the same class as hetero marriages.

However, there is still time to give us a grandfather clause allowing those already in the system to be exempted. We think it could be done by one of those convenient regulations that don’t always have to be approved by parliament. I think you’ll find that Ministers in the previous Howard government used the regulatory system in a raft of anti-terror laws to cover some controversial sections.

The next best status to a marriage is de facto because there is no binding official recognition like a Marriage Certificate so the government equates a same-sex relationship to de facto provided we tell them we are in a marriage-like relationship or Centrelink decides to use its guidelines to determine two people living in the same house are in a marriage-like relationship and therefore a same-sex couple. We had a badge back in the 70s which we wore with pride which said: ‘How dare you assume I’m heterosexual!’ Now we need to change it to ‘How dare you assume that mine is a marriage-like relationship!’ Your government joined the previous government to amend the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. So, really it’s discriminatory to call a same-sex relationship ‘marriage-like’ because the government has refused to give us the equivalent status of a regulatory licence, and it has said so, because it would look like a marriage. It’s not just discriminatory it’s hypocritical to expect us to accept the inappropriate interdependency lower couple rate of pension.

You can get over the whole problem by simply dispensing with the outdated 19th century couple rate and instead pay the single adult rate to each individual of a couple. It would save a heap of money by doing away with Centrelink’s intrusive and costly investigations into people’s lives. What an unexpected gift from this government to all those different-sex couples, too. It should be a strong recommendation by Dr Jeff Harmer (Secretary, FaHCSIA) to the Review Panel chaired by the Secretary to Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, of the Inquiry into Australia’s Future Tax System. It’s the obvious solution to the vexing problem of the couple rate in pensions which is a throw-back to the time when a woman was regarded as a chattel of her husband.

Sincerely,
Signed: Kendall Lovett
for Lesbian & Gay Solidarity (Melbourne).

7 January 2009

This letter was sent to Nicola Roxon, and also to some of the gay and lesbian papers. So far the only one to publish it has been SX in Sydney. Here is the letter, also sent to KRudd:

An open letter Written by Mannie De Saxe
Wednesday, 07 January 2009 10:38

I have received a letter dated 24 December 2008 from Julianne Quaine of the Department of Health and Ageing in which she states that you have asked her to reply on your behalf to the email of 28 November 2008 which I wrote to the Prime Minister about the men’s health ambassadors.

I notice that you did not reply to the email I sent to you personally about the appointment of the homophobic Barry Williams as one of your ‘ambassadors’.

As an 82-year-old gay man, I would not consider for one moment consulting with, or having anything to do with, a group of people which contained those who actually wish to see people like me eliminated from the face of the earth.

It is incumbent on you as the Minister for Health and Ageing to consider the characters of people appointed to positions in which they would be dealing with a diverse group of men whose sexuality is a sensitive issue, and has been for much of their lives.

Dealing with a government which is basically homophobic and constrained by religious principles in its responses to people of different sexualities does not inspire confidence in a Minister who persists in retaining her appointment of a known hater of homosexual men.

Ms Quaine’s letter states: “More men’s health ambassadors will be appointed from a range of professions, in order to have a cross-section of the population capable of representing a wide range of men”.

Strange, therefore, is it not, that you have not appointed any gay men or any men who are knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Strange too, that you have remained silent about the complaints from the gay community about your appointments.

The Prime Minister has also declined to respond to these complaints and has instead referred the letter to him to you for your response.

The words gay and HIV/AIDS do not appear anywhere in that response. The rest of the letter is just political fudging in the classical “Yes Minister” mode.

It is time you dismissed Barry Williams as one of your men’s health ambassadors, for that he is certainly not.

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne.

7 January 2009

This article was drawn to our attention by Dr Jo Harrison, and is printed here in full. It is interesting indeed that the issue of the discriminations about to be visited on gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS ageing people after a lifetime of discrimination and abuse by governments and the population at large, is about to be officially sanctioned by the government pledging to remove "some" of the discriminations.

From "The Spectator, Australia", this well-reasoned and clearly explained article on the discriminations about to be re-inflicted on the ageing in our communities gives a dark scenario indeed!:

JOHN IZZARD

Rudd’s Same Sex Relations Bill is a challenge to the well-earned privacy of retired gay couples, says John Izzard

It is quite possible that 2009 might find the government of Kevin Rudd in a whole heap of trouble regarding its human rights record. Ever so keen to criticise other nations about how they treat their citizens, it seems incredible that Rudd might find himself in the same category as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Because he’s about to go gay-hunting!

Rudd’s new Same Sex Relations Bill 2008 is imminent, and while those living in the Wild Wood are ecstatic, those living along the River Bank are far from happy. It could be getting a tad ‘windy in the willows’.

The new bill gives equal treatment to same-sex couples regarding a range of laws that had been, until now, restricted to married or heterosexual couples. The changes affect things like superannuation, entitlements and legal status, and can briefly be summed up by the law’s subtitle, ‘Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws’.

The new laws were a result of lobbying by high-profile, middle- and upper-class gay activists and a recommendation by Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The main emphasis is on the legal rights of gay couples to the superannuation of their partners. The new laws are a welcome reform, and remove substantial injustices. Overall, they are good news.

While the Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws bill sprang from the noblest intentions, the Rudd government ignored advice that highlighted the moral and ethical problems this law would unleash regarding privacy, discrimination, harassment, embarrassment, anguish and financial suffering, and that it would affect tens of thousands of aged pensioners and welfare recipients.

Unfortunately, because of ministerial and bureaucratic bloody-mindedness, a small yet vulnerable section of the community is about to get it in the neck, or perhaps more crudely, get a kick up the backside.

With the passing of this bill a new wave of sexual harassment, imagined or real, is about to be undertaken by the Commonwealth’s welfare agency, Centrelink.

People living in same-sex relationships will be forced to ‘confess’ their sexual preference to bureaucrats at Centrelink in order for their welfare payments to be re-assessed, and, most likely, reduced. The most vulnerable group, affected by this intrusion into their privacy, are aged pensioners.

Any bachelor pensioner with a dog called Bruce or a Miss Marple with a pussy called Dorothy should be afraid — very afraid. Centrelink is Australia’s most powerful bureaucratic body. With 25,000 staff, it is about the same size as the Australian army and equal to the combined strength of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. The Australian Federal Police is only 6,000 strong.

Pensioners living in a same-sex relationship, the ‘pink and greys’, make up one of the most vulnerable groups in Australia. The last state in the country to remove homosexuality as a crime was Tasmania, in 1997. Until then it was possible to receive a sentence of 20 years for what Lord Arran (as quoted recently in The Spectator) described as allowing ‘…men of a certain age to be as friendly as they liked’.

The bill also has the potential to disrupt and possibly destroy the privacy of this group, many of whom have spent their lives keeping their relationships, if not secret, then at a discreet distance from the officious and the intolerant.

Many have a built-in wariness of government and investigative bodies, and the thought of dossiers and databases, containing details of their personal life and sexual preference, is repugnant and frightening.

The image of thousands of pensioners in their sixties, seventies and eighties shuffling into Centrelink offices around the country, Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs in tow, whispering across the open-plan office space, ‘Yes, I’m gay’ beggars belief. And this is a government initiative?

In effect the government is going to force same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves under threat of financial punishment or being charged with fraud. Details of their sexual preference and their partner’s details will be logged in Centrelink’s database, and dossiers kept on their status.

Centrelink denies this, but it already does this to unmarried mothers, and its ‘regulations’ give it the power to undertake such questioning.

Section 4(3) of the Social Security Regulations gives the department 14 areas under five headings which the secretary (or bureaucrat) can assess in ‘forming an opinion of the nature’ of a relationship (between two people). It includes ‘the social aspect of the relationship, any sexual relationship between the people and the nature of the commitment to each other’. What this boils down to is forced confessions of sexual preference and a creepy system of recording sexual preference onto government databases.

When I questioned Centrelink about the security of this information, I was told: ‘Customer privacy is paramount and customer records are strictly confidential.’ What Centrelink didn’t say was that, in 2006, 800 instances of ‘illegal access’ were detected. How many went undetected we do not know.

Historically, any unmarried person in Australia would have been taxed at a single person’s rate throughout their working life. They would have been denied many of the benefits (joint income, family, housing and so on) available to married couples. Having been taxed for a lifetime as a single person, all previous governments thought it reasonable that single people be paid a ‘single person’s pension’. Rudd’s Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws will change all that.

Meanwhile, back at the River Bank nursing home — apart from having to worry about incontinence, prostate cancer, lumps in the breast, type two diabetes, the upcoming hip replacement, bad food, blood pressure, to say nothing of a spot of dementia — the inmates are now having to consider exactly who their ‘same-sex partner’ might be. After all, they live at the same address.

Incidentally, this murkiness of government bureaucrats snooping into peoples’ private lives could have easily been avoided. All the government had to do was insert a ‘grandfather clause’ to exempt these pensioners who had arranged their affairs to suit existing laws. Or they could have excluded the Social Security Act from their reforms.

In a submission to a Senate inquiry last September, the National Welfare Rights Network warned: ‘There are compelling reasons to continue to treat people in same-sex relationships as “single” under Social Security and Family Assistance law. Applying Social Security means tests to people who have long been disadvantaged before the law is effectively a doubling of their experience of discrimination.’

Dr Jo Harrison, a leading gerontologist with 30 years’ experience in aged care, is staggered by the adverse effects of the legislation.

‘Colleagues in other countries are expressing to me that they are astounded to hear that a federal government is, in effect, “outing” elderly gay people,’ she says.

‘It gives one cause to wonder whether the holding of records that reveal the sexuality of people, including those in their eighties and nineties, is a serious breach of privacy regulations, anti-discrimination laws and even the UN Charter of Human Rights.’

A sad aspect of all of this is the reaction of the younger homosexual set, and the politically active ‘celebrity gays’ who have encouraged this legislation. They show little compassion or sympathy for the ‘pink and greys’. In the aggressive tribal world of gay rights there is a very much me/now attitude, which can find instant offence at perceived discrimination, yet when discrimination doesn’t affect them or their immediate circle, their diamante glasses fog up.

Only the brave — wearing hob-nailed boots and asbestos clothing — would venture into the world of pink politics. Unfortunately, the issue of pensioners privacy rights cuts across the agenda of the gay lobby, who are trying to force the introduction of gay marriage. Part of this push is the attempt to establish, in each state, a ‘gay register’, a preliminary stage to gaining full marriage status.

Obviously, elderly same-sex couples are repelled by this, particularly as many have spent a lifetime trying to shelter from discrimination, endemic in Australian culture prior to the present generation. The thought of public displays, flaunting their sexuality, is unimaginable.

Pensioners standing up for their right to privacy is the last thing the gay marriage lobby wants — hence the lack of support for the elders of their tribe.

The champions of the Same Sex Relations Bill are an exotic lot who will most likely never have to enter a Centrelink office or seek pension assistance.

In the political arena we find Senator Penny Wong and Senator Bob Brown. Wong is Australia’s first openly gay cabinet minister. Brown is Australia’s environmental wunderkind and Australia’s first openly gay Senator. A key supporter of the new law was Judge of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby.

Michael Kirby’s justified eagerness stems from his imminent retirement, and the need to sort out the superannuation issues for his lifetime partner. The push by the government was to ensure the bill passed in time for Kirby’s retirement next month.

Other players in this saga include Senator Robert McClelland, Australia’s Attorney General, who announced ‘a system of registration of personal relationships’ in April 2008, and whose department drew up the legislation.

Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission initiated the introduction of the new laws. How they will handle any complaint or legal challenge will be interesting.

Strangely, the new laws will be given Royal Assent by the new Governor General, Quentin Bryce, who, in a previous life was Queensland’s human rights and equal rights commissioner and sex discrimination commissioner for the federal human rights agency.

Perhaps Kevin Rudd should re-read The Wind in the Willows to remind him his heart should be on the River Bank, not in the Wild Wood.

While many in government see the ‘pink and greys’ as an easy target, and a chance of reducing the pension budget by about $9 million a year, they should not underestimate the bent-aged as a fighting force.

While Zimmer frames and electric wheelchairs may affect mobility, their plan to use the internet to take their case to world forums is something Kevin Rudd should be very wary of. An internet campaign, high-lighting what the Australian government is up to, might not be a pretty sight.

As one old tottering ‘pink and grey’ said last week: ‘Our legs might be buggered but our fingers can still type.’

7 January 2009

This letter was written by the Coalition of Activist Lesbians (COAL) to the following politicians concerning the urgent issue of a grandfather clause on the new same-sex legislation:

To: JMacklin.MP@aph.gov.au
Cc: R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au ; senator.ludwig@aph.gov.au ;
Tanya.Plibersek.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Justine.Elliot.MP@aph.gov.au ;
Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:18 PM

The Hon Jenny Macklin MHR,
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
From: Coalition of Activist Lesbians - Australia
PO Box 424
Thirroul, NSW 2518
www.coal.org.au
Email:coal@aapt.net.au

Re: Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - General Law Reforms) Act 2008, and Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Act 2008.

COALITION OF ACTIVIST LESBIANS - AUSTRALIA (COAL) is a national community-based Non-Government Organisation. We advocate on behalf of lesbians in Australia. COAL is an accredited NGO with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as well as the Division for the Advancement of Women.

We are thankful that the government has legislated to bring about equality for lesbians and gays, however there are some who will suffer from the changes such as those on income support/social security payments eg aged pension and disability/carer payments. COAL members are currently meeting regularly to discuss the impact of the changes on individual lesbians. We have serious concerns.

We believe that legislation, policy and programs must promote substantive justice, and therefore should reflect the reality that the playing field is not level. Equal actions do not achieve equal results. Outcomes should always be considered. In every major Social Security reform for the past 15 years grandfathering clauses have been included. We do not understand why this has not occurred here.

Lesbians experience our social position and financial security as being strongly influenced by both gender and sexual orientation. Generally women earn less, have few years in the paid work force, little superannuation and have spent years caring for children and others in need. The new legislation will create hardship to a great many lesbians who have planned their living, financial, social and retirement arrangements - including mortgages - on the basis of two financially independent beings. The changes have come too suddenly for people to plan or rearrange their long-term finances and housing. COAL has case studies available.

COAL urges the Federal Government to use regulatory measures to create a grandfather clause to guarantee that lesbians and gay men already receiving income support do not lose their existing entitlements thereby jeopardising their current living arrangements.

COAL further urges the Federal Government to fund an independent advocate to assist lesbians who will be significantly affected by the new legislation. Law reform is a part of the picture but we also need resources to protect those that have already lived a vulnerable life. COAL requests a meeting with the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, to discuss these issues.

We ask that you give serious attention to this matter and take action to ensure that lesbians are not further disadvantaged under the law.

Sincerely
Sandra Hall and Wendy Suiter
On behalf of COAL-Australia

14 January 2009

The Sydney paper SX carried the following opinion piece from Vanessa Wagner on grandfathers!:

SX 14 January 2009
Opinion
Vanessa Wagner

I don't know about you but I have always LOVED grandfathers. They are cute, cuddly and often handy for cleaning blocked pipes.

Those who do not embrace grandfathers are usually mean, selfish and downright ugly.

It seems Kevin 09 is not mighty fine when it comes to grandfathering or protecting our gay elders from what could seriously be outright abuse - since when did we all think dragging oldies out of the closet was kosher?

There seems to be a great bloody mess of a shmozzle of a train wreck associated with the introduction of the same sex reforms, many of which were cause to crack the bubbly.

But for lots of us, the changes mean bloody rotten, unfair, often devastating loss of income and concessions that make us wonder whether to pack the trolley and get the hell out of home NOW.

Centrelink, or is that Centrehell, will be treating those of us in same sex couples much as they have single mothers for decades - badly. Snooping, asking questions Of anyone they like, and demanding that you come out as a couple, no matter what your age or circumstances or face stiff penalties, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

Ready to wake up to clip boarded Centrelink junior in your bedroom ticking the box next to 'sexual relationship' next to her section 24 couples guidelines? No I'm not joking.

What are they thinking, what is the PM thinking, gays and lesbians who are octogenarians lining up on their scooters waiting for Centrelink to open so they can shift into gear and speed across the office floor shouting 'gay and grey' to anyone who will listen and immediately take notes?

If it wasn't so shocking it would be the stuff of comedy. Pity the Hollow Men has finished what a field day they would have had.

How the government could not have grandfathered, like they have for other groups for the past 15 years, those who would be hurt by the changes is beyond me. People who are already poor, vulnerable or elderly should not suffer the shock of complying to new regimes their lives were never set up to encounter.

There are lots of case studies, stories of elderly gays and lesbians, people living with HIV and AIDS, and many others, that show the absurd shmozzle that this situation really is.

Get a grandfather and get one NOW Mr Rudd, - and tell your colleagues Senator Ludwig, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General to get one too.

Otherwise who knows what will ensue - people without grandfathers get very angry, I know it for a fact.

Join me in telling the pollies we want grandfathering protections for our own mob, we don't want to be divided into 'haves' and 'have nots' attacking each other. That might please some, but not any of us, and certainly not me.

Send your emails to:

Kevin Rudd (contact form) via: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
The Attorney General Robert McClelland:
r.mcclelland.mp@aph.gov.au
Senator Joe Ludwig (contact form at):
http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=84N
Jenny Macklin:
jmacklin.mp@aph.gov.au
Vanessa Wagner

14 January 2009

The following letter by Noel Tovey appeared in ACT Gay on 14 January 2009 and is reproduced here in full:

The following report from MCV - Issue 407 dated 23 October 2008 should be a wake-up call to the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS communities in Australia.

For too long the complacency of members of these communities is evidence of how they have taken for granted the rights which they now have accorded to them in legislation in federal, state and territory jurisdictions. Activism is a thing of the past, "passe" to so many. "We don't do activism any more, we don't need to".

Not only is there still a long way to go to achieve equal rights, but it is very easy for those rights which we have achieved after years of struggle to be overturned at the stroke of a pen.

Here is the report:

 

Anti-gay threat emerges

Written by Peter Hackney

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

A coalition of organisations espousing the interests of ‘natural biological families’ has released a list of anti-gay policy proposals and represents a new threat to GBLTI communities, say gay activists. Gender Matters, a coalition of 17 groups and organisations, has released a list of demands on its website, www.gendermatters.org.au. They include: •    That marriage be “forever preserved as the voluntary exclusive union of one man and one woman”; •    That adoption be restricted to heterosexual couples; •    That IVF and other reproductive technologies are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals; •    A ban on same-sex civil unions and registers. The group wants homosexuality registered as a medical condition and public funds committed to “curing” homosexuality, which they term “gender disorientation pathology”. Last Thursday, it flexed its political clout with a submission to the Senate hearing on the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill. Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Rodney Croome said Gender Matters is couching its homophobia in a new way, in terms of gender differentiation. “Ordinarily, I would dismiss this kind of material as anti-gay hatred at the margins of the political debate,” Croome said. “But by framing their rhetoric in terms of gender differentiation, they will strike a chord with more people.” Australian Marriage Equality also expressed concern, but said it showed anti-gay groups were feeling threatened. Warwick Marsh, the Wollongong-based founder of Gender Matters, refused to answer questions when contacted by MCV.

GENDER MATTERS - HOMOPHOBIC MURDERERS

The 17 groups involved in this nefarious coalition must get as much public exposure as possible and they must be vigorously opposed by as many groups and individuals as possible.

Blog about them, put them on your web pages, expose their murderous intent at every opportunity, and ensure you work to see them closed down, if necessary by federal, state and territory attorneys- general under anti-discriminatory legislation. It is long past time that exemptions continue to be granted to these groups with their murderous statements which lead inevitably to bashings, assaults, bullyings and ultimately murder by the thugs influenced by their wicked teachings! Time for governments to act and act NOW!!!!!

It should be noted that this homophobic group has taken the name of a gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV-AIDS help group in the UK and used it with the deliberate intent of confusing people who may already be confused about sexuality and its problems and difficulties. This group is setting out to subvert any and every body who is supportive of these communities. Their religion-based mumbo jumbo must be exposed and stamped on before its viciousness takes hold of people who are already prejudiced before even understanding the basics of sexuality. 

DEECEE AND SAM USED TO EAT TOGETHER, AS CAN BE SEEN BY THE PICTURE ABOVE, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ENFORCING SEXUAL APARTHEID ON ITS GAY, LESBIAN AND TRANSGENDER CITIZENS, SO THEY NOW HAVE TO EAT IN "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" FACILITIES AT OTHER ENDS OF THE DINING ROOM AND KITCHEN.

THE ITEM BELOW WAS AN ADVERTISEMENT PLACED IN THE SUNDAY AGE ON 3 AUGUST 2008  BY THE ORGANISATIONS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ITEM.

JEFF KENNETT WAS A POLITICIAN WHOSE ACTIONS PRODUCED DISASTER ALL ROUND VICTORIA, NOT LEAST IN THE COUNCIL AREA OF DAREBIN, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE PANCH HOSPITAL IN BELL STREET, PRESTON.

HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPRESSION BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS AND, NOT LEAST, BECAUSE OF HIS HOMOPHOBIA.

PEOPLE LIKE KENNETT MUST BE STOPPED BECAUSE THE DAMAGE THEY DO TO PEOPLE IS INCALCULABLE AND DEVASTATING TO THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

KENNETT ALWAYS SPOKE FIRST AND THOUGHT AFTERWARDS, BUT IN THIS CASE HE OUGHT TO BE TAKEN BEFORE AN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL AND STOPPED FROM SPITTING THE VENOM WHICH COMES FROM HIS MOUTH.

HOMOPHOBIA IN AUSTRALIA IS AT UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS WITH BASHINGS, MURDERS AND VILIFICATIONS OCCURRING ALL THE TIME.

POLITICIANS MUST STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES AND UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE THEY DO. KENNETT IS ONE OF THOSE WHO MUST BE SILENCED!

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne

PO Box 1675

Preston South

Vic 3072

Email: josken_at_zipworld_com_au

Web: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken

I refer to your letter dated 6 May 2007 (sic) (REF: MF:HE) in which you write to advise of the Rudd government’s attempts to placate homosexual Australians by having “some discriminations” removed, while leaving others untouched.

As Gertrude Stein might have said: “Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination”!

Reform is not what is required – equality is what is required, and an end to discrimination and homophobia.

It is not yet clear on what grounds the federal government intends, yet again, to interfere with the ACT’s attempts to bring equality to its citizens, but it does show that the Rudd government is just as determined as the Howard government to placate the religious right and leave marriage as between a man and a woman. This is, in any event, a biblical interpretation in a secular state and has no place in the 21^st century in Australia.

The following definitions might help you and your government to understand the English language a little better:

Concise Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990:

Homophobia: a hatred or fear of homosexuals

Discrimination:  unfavourable treatment based on prejudice, especially regarding race, colour or sex

Equality: the state of being equal.

Gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS people demand rights which are the same for all members of the Australian population, in other words, equal rights.

Equal rights are not special rights.

The reforms of legislation by this federal government provide limited "equality" which ends as soon as the current attorney general, no less than the previous one, says marriage is between a man and a woman.

The religious right has got this government where it wants it, that is, no partnership rights because it will break up the religious aspects of a man owning a woman and will be a desecration of the marriage ceremony! In 2008 the divorce rate is at an all time high with more than one in three marriages breaking up after a few years, and many couples living together and choosing not to marry at all!

What gay, lesbian and transgender people want is equal rights, not special rights, and although I heartily disapprove of marriage as an institution, if some couples want such certificated approval, it should be their right to have it.

 
What this government has done is to provide a sop to those who think they have achieved law reform as recommended by the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report which advised of 58 areas of inequality in the law, but there have since been discovered to be over 100 items.

Discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders continues to be government policy, no matter which party is in government, and none can be trusted to provide equality! Homophobia is alive and well and certainly living in Canberra!

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne

As Gertrude Stein might have said of the Rudd government: A DISCRIMINATION IS A DISCRIMINATION IS A DISCRIMINATION!

Today, 30 April 2008, we get an announcement from the federal attorney general that the government is committed to ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders by altering about 100 pieces of legislation affecting superannuation, hospital benefits and other financial related issues.

They also announced in their most pompous and self-righteous manner: "Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

There is a major problem with their patronising attitude and the revised legislation. Marriage between a man and a woman as an institution has been failing for at least the last 50 years and continues to do so.

What is marriage? Ownership in a heterosexual arrangement of a woman by a man.

Gays, lesbians, transgenders do not want anything other than equal rights under the law, not special rights which is what the government is doing yet again in its discriminatory legislation.

Who needs marriage? I certainly don't! Been there, done that, wouldn't ever make the same mistake a second time, and my gay partner and I wouldn't contemplate marriage if it was offered to us on a platter!

BUT! and this is the big but - many people in our communities feel that marriage or its equivalent legal registration process would allow them the same rights as heterosexuals enjoy - adoption rights, IVF rights and other related rights.

So, what do we get? We get the slop bucket of the Howard/Rudd governments waste material thrown at us as a sop.

Is it good enough? Of course not!

What do we want?

Equal rights!

When do we want them?

NOW!!!!!

Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne

Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi gras turns 30 in 2008.

Police brutality during the 1978 parade, the first one ever, was spectacularly disgusting, and was followed by NSW police behaving disgustingly for many years until there seemed to have been something of a culture change, and the brutality diminished.

Events in 2008 in Oxford Street in Sydney show that police culture has changed basically very little over that 30-year period.

This story from BNews in Melbourne on 28 February 2008, by the publishing editor of the Sydney Star Observer, Scott Abrahams, tells some of the story of current-day events:

Bashed, beaten, abused . . . and vindicated

Violence in Sydney's Oxford Street has become an increasingly regular occurrence, but the community is fighting back.

"As far as we have come, homophobia is still a relevant threat in our world today.

There are still people out there who consider fag bashing a legitimate Friday and Saturday night sport. Sydeny has, in recent months, seen a visible increase in the level of homophobic violence. Oxford street is no longer the golden gay mile it once was. It is a melting pot of gay, lesbians, twinks, straights and creeds - a combination that has developed into a time bomb.

The brutal bashing of Shane Brennan and Craig Gee occurred when they were set upon while walking along Crown Street holding hands, just a few blocks from Oxford Street. The angry gang of men yelled, "Give us your money you fucking faggot" at the pair - making it clear this was a homophobic attack.

Both sustained horrendous injuries. Part of Craig's skull was reduced to powder and one of his legs broken. His partner Shane thought he was going to die. The police, we were told, were not being very co-operative. They were "investigating a number of leads."

As publishing editor of the Sydney Star Observer (SSO) I felt it was vital the paper took Craig and Shane's case to the public. The reaction was instant. Letters to the paper tripled, more people who had been the victims of homophobic violence came forward. Even more frightening, many of them also reported a disappointing reaction from the police at Surry Hills station.

A group of community-minded individuals set to work to organise a vigil in the park next to the police station as a show of strength and a call for action. It drew more than 1000 people.

The paper continued to print stories of violence and police inaction - and the police fought back through other media, claiming we had misrepresented the facts, embellished the story and fancified the claims. SSO was under a lot of pressure to cease its attack on the police, to stop stirring the community into a unified position.

Then things started to change. The AIDS Council of NSW (ACON) sent a damning file to the NSW Ombudsman which contained a string of cases of homophobic violence reported to and dismissed by the local police.

NSW Police Minister David Campbell stepped in and ordered investigations into Surry Hills Police Station.

Eight weeks later the paper's position has been vindicated. Surry Hills police commander Supt Daryl Donnolley and his crime manager, Det Insp David Eagan-Lee have been shifted from Surry Hills to other posts. Donnolley now has a desk job at corporate headquarters and Eagan-Lee has been sent out to the western suburbs.

Their replacements - Ashfield's Donna Adney and Shane Wolbank, are our new hope. They, along with Assistant Commissioner Catherine Burn, say it is their intention to tackle homophobic violence head-on.

What we have achieved as a paper in these intense and difficult two months is to show that Sydney's gay and lesbian population is still passionate about community and that, given the right circumstances, it will flex its political muscle and demand action."

It is thirty years since the first Mardi Gras in 1978. Police brutality was well documented at the time, both in writing and in film, some of which illustrates the culture which was prevalent in the police force in NSW at the time, and Neville Wran's inaction and refusal to take action to stop the homophobic violence on the streets, in the police force, and in the community at large.

What is alarming is to discover, yet again, over this 30 year period, that "The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same."

Morris Iemma's government has been amongst the most homophobic in recent times, and the culture propagated by the Howard government over nearly 12 years only exacerbated an already critical situation, giving the religious right a controlling interest in government and in preaching hate in the community about gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV members of the community.

At least the actions of the Sydney Star Observer in exposing the current situation meant that action had to be taken to change the culture.

Let us hope that it has happened. Homophobia has been out of control in Australia for too long and changes are needed. Whether Kevin Rudd and his religious culture will allow any changes to occur which will be positive in the longer term - well, don't hold your breath!!!

Two of the worst homophobes in the USA - and that is really saying something!! - died during 2007. Still 10 days to go to the end of 2007 so here's hoping!

The first was Reverend Jerry Falwell, he of the so-called moral majority, which was neither moral nor the majority, nor was he reverent, died of natural causes.

The second was Peter Rudegeiar, a catholic psychologist, and co-founder of Courage, an organisation to turn dykes and poofters of the catholic persuasion into straight baby makers.

He was killed in a car accident.

Well, it's no accident that the world is a better place without these two venerable - or should that be venereal -  men.

Fred Phelps is still around, but we live in hope!

   IRAN’S CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS GAY AND LESBIAN HATE CRIMES

The item  below was sent to Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne, by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. 

South Africa's situation has become critical with murders of gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS people becoming commonplace and the police and the Government doing little to curb this homophobic violence. In fact the South African government's stance on HIV/AIDS is such that it engenders violence and encourages opposition to the new constitution which gives equal rights to these minorities.

The South African government's stance on HIV/AIDS is well known with its president Thabo Mbeki and his Health (sic) Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang doing their best to reduce the AIDS crisis to the laughing stock of the rest of the world - except that it has such tragic consequences. Manto - the alcoholic and disgraceful member of the South African parliament aims to cure people with HIV/AIDS with beetroot and garlic!! These people are criminals and should be locked up - not continue to govern a country of 40 million of which 20% are HIV positive due to government neglect and opposition to the drugs available.

And then activists and others get murdered and their murderers are not caught because the homophobia in the community is fostered by the government.

 Article Sydney Morning Herald

Bisexuality a result of detention, detainee told

Erik Jensen
May 9, 2007

Ali Humayun, right, with his partner … he fears deportation.

A MAN seeking asylum on the grounds that he would be persecuted as a bisexual Christian in Pakistan was denied refugee status because authorities ruled he was bisexual only as a result of being locked up with other men.

Giles Short, the Refugee Review Tribunal member who made the decision, said in his finding: "the applicant was not in fact bisexual … [his relationship] was simply the product of the situation where only partners of the same sex were available and said nothing about his sexual orientation."

He said this was the case in many relationships in prisons and detention centres.

In evidence to the tribunal, Ali Humayun said he and his partner had discussed marriage. But Mr Short dismissed this as "a contrived attempt to make their relationship appear more serious".

His findings were upheld by the Federal Magistrates Court on February 19, which said the decision on Mr Humayun's sexuality had been a "finding of fact".

Mr Humayun came to Australia in 2000 to study information technology and has spent more than two years in Villawood Detention Centre. He said he began his first same-sex relationship before entering the centre. At the time of his tribunal hearing, he identified as bisexual, but now said he was gay.

Mr Humayun says he is the only openly gay detainee at Villawood - his partner has been granted asylum. He says he is persecuted daily by detainees, but fears worse in Pakistan. "I'm worried for my life if I am deported home," he said. "The men in my family, they are really fundamentalist types. Muslims. My lifestyle is totally in contrast to what they believe."

Pakistani civil law punishes gay sex with jail terms of between two years and life. Under Islamic law, homosexuals can face 100 lashes or death by stoning.

Mr Humayun said he converted to Christianity after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The tribunal rejected that claim on the grounds that he could not answer questions such as naming the first four books of the New Testament, and had not actively pursued the religion in detention.

Mr Humayun was detained after he was caught working on a bridging visa. His appeal for asylum has been rejected by the Department of Immigration and the tribunal. He is writing to the Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, requesting he intervene on humanitarian grounds.

The Greens senator Kerry Nettle, who met Mr Humayun on Friday, said she would raise the case with the minister. She was concerned Mr Humayun was in a part of Villawood usually reserved for people with criminal records. "It's like a prison," she said. "All of the other detainees have been convicted of criminal offences, apart from him."

Mr Humayun said he was moved when guards received an anonymous, hand-written note saying he was planning to escape. He said he asked to see the note, but it was never shown to him.

A tribunal spokeswoman declined to comment on the case, citing confidentiality provisions in the Migration Act. Mr Andrews was unavailable for comment.

In 2003 the High Court ruled that a Bangladeshi couple should not be deported as they would face persecution for being gay.

Mr Humayun said: "I am hopeful, but at this stage I have realistic expectations. I don't expect to be getting out soon."

ABC 19 May 2007

Refugee Review Tribunal 'homophobic': detainee

By Caro Meldrum

Friday, 18 May 2007. 16:02 (AEST)Friday, 18 May 2007. 16:02 (ACST)Friday, 18 May 2007. 13:02 (AWST)

A 26-year-old Pakistani Christian, Ali Humayun, has been in Villawood Detention Centre for more than two years.Supplied

A vigil has been held in eastern Sydney for a homosexual Christian Pakistani man who has been detained at Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre for more than two years.

Ali Humayun's application for asylum was based on fear of persecution if he returned home, but was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal last October.

The tribunal ruled that the 26-year-old's sexual orientation was a result of his detention.

Mr Humayun identified himself as bisexual before entering a relationship with 41-year-old Spanish citizen, Julio Lorenzo, at the detention centre last year.

Mr Humayun now identifies as homosexual.

In the tribunal's judgment, decision maker Giles Short rejected Mr Humayun's claim on the basis of inconsistent evidence.

"I do not accept that the applicant is in fact bisexual in sexual orientation as he claims."

"I consider that his relationship with Mr Lorenzo is simply the product of the situation, where only partners of the same sex are available, and says nothing about his sexual orientation."

Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH) organised last night's vigil at Taylor Square in Darlinghurst, to mark International Day Against Homophobia.

Dozens of protesters, surrounded by candles and armed with placards, called for the release of Mr Humayun, claiming the tribunal is homophobic.

Farida Iqbal is a spokeswoman for CAAH.

She rejects the tribunal's finding that Mr Humayun's sexuality is a result of being in close confinement with men.

"That whole argument is an inherently homophobic argument. Isn't there a more plausible explanation, that they are gay and that they've been gay all along?

"Especially the risk that he is taking by coming out of the closet. To me that's not 'situational homosexuality'. He is risking his life."

"I've seen him with his boyfriend. To me it looks like they're very much in love, you can just see that when they're together, it's absolutely clear"

Mr Lorenzo was granted permanent residency in Australia three months ago.

Since then, he has been visiting Mr Humayun almost every day.

"This is real, it comes from the heart," he said.

"We love each other from the heart. I walked out of Villawood and if that was the case, if it was only sex, then I wouldn't be going to see him, I wouldn't be trying as hard as I am trying to get him out.

"We want to get married, but marriage isn't everything to us. We will stay together for ever even if we don't get married."

But in the tribunal's decision, member Giles Short dismissed their desire to marry.

"He (Mr Humayun) said that if he and Mr Lorenzo could stay in Australia they would and that they did not need to get married to stay together.....this suggests to me that the applicant's evidence and Mr Lorenzo's, that he and Mr Lorenzo often talked about marriage, was a contrived attempt to make their relationship appear more serious than it is."

Mr Humayun is currently being held in the maximum security section at Villawood, stage one.

Ms Iqbal says Mr Humayun is afraid of other detainees.

"He cops a lot of homophobia from the other detainees," she said.

"He stays in his room most days because he's scared of the other men's reaction. He's suffering immensely."

"But what he fears most is being sent back to Pakistan. He will be severely persecuted if he is deported."

Mr Lorenzo says that Mr Humayun comes from a fundamentalist Muslim family, but converted to Christianity several months ago.

He says Mr Humayun told him and the tribunal that his father and brother have threatened to kill him if he returns to Pakistan because he has disgraced his family.

"Pakistan is not a society like ours. We've got the Government and then we've got the Church separately. But over there the Church, the spiritual leader is above anything else and so his family are already threatening," he said.

"They don't think like we think. I am scared for him myself."

But in the tribunal's judgment, member Giles Short also dismissed that claim.

"I am not satisfied that the applicant's conduct in telling his family in Pakistan about his claimed bisexuality and his claimed relationship with Mr Lorenzo was engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee."

Mr Humayun lodged a Ministerial Request to overturn the tribunal's decision with the Department of Immigration on March 23rd.

The Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, says he is not able to comment on Mr Humayun's case because he has not yet received the request.

A spokeswoman for the Minister says the department has received the request and it is currently being processed.

She says it will be given to Mr Andrews in the next few days.

Related Images

Julio Lorenzo (left) says he will not give up the fight to get his partner, Ali Humayun, out of Villawood Detention Centre.Supplied

Members of Community Action Against Homophobia call for the release of Pakistani national Ali Humayun from Villawood Detention Centre at the vigil in Taylors Square.ABC News

Sydneysiders stopped to sign a petition calling for the release of Villawood Detention Centre detainee Ali Humayun at the vigil at Taylors Square in Darlinghurst.ABC News

Related Video

Refugee Review Tribunal 'homophobic': detainee

Scenes from the vigil for Villawood Detention Centre detainee Ali Humayun, whose claim for asylum was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal in October last year.

Real Broadband

Real Dialup

Win Broadband

Win Dialup

Flash Dialup

Flash Broadband

Related Audio

Julio Lorenzo speaks about his relationship with his partner, 26-year-old Ali Humayun

Julio Lorenzo speaks about his relationship with 26-year-old Ali Humayun, who he met while in Villawood Detention Centre.

MP3

MP3

MP3

MCV 13 June 2007

HUMAYUN HOME, BRIEFLY

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) has granted queer Pakistani refugee, Ali Humayun, currently incarcerated at Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre, a four hour home visit. The visit took place on May 31, allowing Ali to spend time with his boyfriend, Julio Lorenzo, at Lorenzo's family home. Previously, DIAC officials had refused to recognise Humayun's sexuality.

"It was good to get out of Villawood for four hours [but] I would like more home visits," Humayun said. "These trips out of Villawood go a long way in terms of a detainee's mental health. Ultimately though, I would love to be freed."

Currently detainees are allowed only one home visit per month.

Activist group Community Action Against Homophobia continue to agitate for Humayun to be granted Australian citizenship.

Marriage is a collapsing institution world-wide. Statistics in some countries put failed marriages at about 30 per cent of legalised unions - and therein lies the rub.

Marriage is actually a civil ceremony demanded by a state for various reasons relating to partner benefits of various sorts, legal entitlements such as hospital visiting rights, death entitlements such as who controls the assets, the will and other related issues.

Now let's see - a few dozen couples in Australia who happen to be same-sex couples want to get married so that they can share the benefits that heterosexuals take for granted. And this is going to destroy marriage????

This letter in The Age of 15 June 2006 probably says it all:

The civil roots of marriage

"Religious and political leaders who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is somehow sacred and relates to the union of a male and a female are either being disingenuous or are simply wilfully ignorant.

Marriage was only ever conceived of as a civil union. The legal joining of a couple came about so that powerful families could consolidate and increase their power through property and wealth. The fact that marriages took place in a religious setting reflects the place of the church in the state at the time that marriage became common among the upper classes.

Marriage only became more widespread after the Industrial Revolution, with the rise of the middle class. Even a cursory reading of popular texts such as Dickens and Hardy will reveal that few working-class people married, although it was common for de facto couples to call themselves married.

In Australia today, you are not married unless the state marries you. You can have the most beautiful, devout, expensive religious ceremony you like. Unless you are married by a state-sanctioned celebrant and sign that piece of paper, you are not married. Marriage in the eyes of Australian law is exclusively a civil union.

These are the only facts about the supposed "blessed" state of marriage that matter. Everything else is just smokescreen, hypocrisy, hysteria and bigotry."

Vanda Hamilton, East Melbourne

And, what Vanda should have included in her last sentence was HOMOPHOBIA! 

There are 150 members of the house of representatives in the federal parliament. There are also 76 senators.

In a total of 226 members in the parliament, some are married, some are divorced, some are living in de facto relationships, some are cheating on their partners, some are gays or lesbians who are living in their closets, some are gays and lesbians, some are single.

Some profess religious affiliations but secretly behave against the religions they profess to belong to, others do not have religious affiliations, so are not being hypocrites, and hypocrites are all the others behaving dishonestly in the way they voted on the same-sex relationships issue.

Ruddock is the biggest hypocrite of all. His dictatorial actions in relation to the ACT's legislation, carried out on the instructions of the prime minister, show to what lengths this parliament will go to hide its true nature. This is a parlaiment trying to trun a secular democracy into a christian-run fascist state. The longer they remain in power, the longer their control of both houses of parliament is turning this democracy into history.

There is a light at the end of this very long tunnel. It seems -at last - as if voter sentiment is becoming tired of the lies and disgusting behaviour of so many of the elected members of the current parliament that they may vote them out at the next election, unless John Howard and his crew can manufacture some sort of crisis to sway the herd yet again.

We have to live in hope! There is nothing else otherwise! 

Australia has one of the highest divorce statistics in the world. "Marriage is a voluntary agreement, entered into between a man and a woman, for life". So one in three marriages ends in divorce.

Men and women are living together, as partners, de factos, call them what you will, but not in marriage.

However, they are entitled to all the benefits which the law bestows on heterosexual couples.

Homosexual couples demand the same human rights and benefits that other citizens of Australia have, and resent the federal and state governments treating them as second-class citizens.

The government of the ACT has endeavoursed to introduce legislation in the Territory giving equal weight under the law to people whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

The Howard government intends to override the ACT legislation so that same-sex unions will be illegal.

Howard and his Coalition members need to get around their electorates a bit, where they will find same-sex people living in relationships, accepted by all who know them, and not affecting the traditions of marriage one little bit.

It is necessary for gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV/AIDS (GLTH) community members to pool their differences and mount an activist campaign to stop the rot this government is responsible for.

There is only one reason glth people are demanding marriage - and that is to obtain the same legal and human rights as those members of the Australian community who call themselves heterosexuals.

It would be interesting to do an investigation into the private lives of all current members of federal parliament. How many have intact marriages? How many are "faithful" to their partners (spouses)? How many are in a closet???

The ones in the closet are the worst ones, because they are the hypocrites who vote with this ghastly government on its vicious legislation to turn GLTH people into second-class citizens of Australia.

This story is not yet over - WATCH THIS SPACE!

The Daily Telegraph in Sydney posted an editorial on 29 May 2006 under the heading: More nightmare than mayor

The pun headlines being perpetrated by all the daily newspapers are reaching new levels of absurdity, but this one just about takes the prize for crass stupidity!

And this is the opening paragraph:

"It can already be stated with confidence that Marrickville Mayor Sam Byrne is an unusual man. Anyone who thinks children aged six weeks to six years must be taught about gay, lesbian, transgender and 'intersex' parenting is way out of step with mainstream values.

It appears now that Mr Byrne is also a coward."

Now let's see what Mayor Byrne's "crime" was:

Last week (between 22 and 26 May) Mayor Byrne was "loudly trumpeting his achievements in turning Tillman Park Children's Centre into a social laboratory."

"He wouldn't shut up about his success in 'challenging children's perception of what is normal gender and sexual identity."

"As we stated on Saturday - what perverted rot. Children do not have a perception of sexual identity, and anyone who sets out to create one is, put simply, a creep."

Note the criticisms - "He wouldn't shut up---." "-----loudly trumpeting----." ---what perverted rot." "----a creep."

Now nobody could accuse the Daily Terror of homophobia - oh no! they just hate gay, lesbian, transgender, HIV/AIDS people with a deep and deadly loathing without rime or reason, and who are convenient scapegoats in John Howard's Australia, where the hate and loathing is coming from the top and pervades every level of his government. Just remember the Heffernan/Kirby affair - undoubtedly stoked initially by the Prime Minister who hoped to create a public scandal so that he could get rid of an openly gay judge from the High Court benches.

The outcome of that event was that it discredited Heffernan and Howard, and no doubt helped the closet homsexuals in the ranks of the Coalition in Federal Parliament to stay even more closeted than they already were.

But one of the more bizarre statements in the introductory paragraph of this editorial is "---out of step with mainstream values."

As a consequence of the editorial and an article in the same issue of the paper which has a heading (which should be taken up by the Anti-Discrimination Board) "Revolt over 'transgender' teaching" , people who were very angry with both sent letters to the paper which, to its credit or shame, published several which heavily criticised the comments in the editorial and article.

The programme at the Tillman Park Childcare Centre is not about 'transgender' teaching at all, and the writer of the article, Sue Dunleavy is guilty of sensationalising what was basically a more comprehensive inclusion than the heading would infer.

Also, the editorial called the Centre a Children's Centre, and the article called it a Childcare centre, which is no doubt the correct title.

National Nine News reported during the day that Marrickville Mayor Sam Byrne had defended the use of gay-friendly books and said there was a definite need for the centre in his area.

Mal Brough, as could be expected, expressed the federal government's view on the issue: "let kids be kids. Read them fairytales and don't make their life more complicated."

No doubt, by fairytales he meant the bible and other fictions.