sju-sjukskoterska

pseudo swede blemishes the internet with her impure thoughts and so on.

torstaina, toukokuuta 27, 2004

Ranty-tanty

Yes, I know, how unusual for me, but, really, there is a lot to rant about!

First we have john howard getting snippy about gay marriage - damn it, it seems to be working as an election bouncer in the US - why not try it here? Better still, he's stated, "it is not about discriminating against them (his lip curls with distaste as he is unable to even pronounce the words "same sex couples"), rather it is about discriminating in favour of marriage as a man and a woman" - yep, so in apartheid South Africa, the laws didn't really discriminate against black people, they just discriminated in favour of white people, so it was all okay????

okay, so that is annoying, insulting and offensive, but kind of what we expect from a narrow-minded hater like howard.

for the ALP, however, i condemn them to listening to only one song over and over until voting closes on the federal election:



Oops! Like, oops, we thought the ALP was a different party to the coalition... like OOPS we though the ALP pretended to give a shit about human rights and equality. Like, OOPS, didn't you realise from the LAST election that voters like to have a choice between two parties which are vaguely different from one another???

So, in typical ranty lesbotic fashion, here's what i posted off to nicola roxon, mark latham and my local member:

Ranty number one:
Dear Ms Roxon,

After Mark Latham came to power, I thought there might be a shift in the way the ALP was doing things. I hoped that, unlike in the last federal election, we might see the ALP show some measure of leadership, through differentiating themselves from the government, rather than blindly following John Howard's lead into the cowardly politics of racism and xenophobia. I was pleased to see Latham take a different stance on the war in Iraq - a stance which reflects the common feeling of many Australians that the invasion of Iraq has cause more problems than it has solved, and has caused a huge amount of human suffering in the process.

Yet on the issue of same sex marriage, where once again, the Howard government has pinned its desperate election hopes on scapegoating a minority group, I am sorry to see that the ALP has followed suit. Rather than showing any leadership, you have chosen to collaborate in blatant discrimination against people in same sex relationships. Your own platform and constitution states:

"Labor supports legislative and administrative action by all Australian governments to eliminate discrimination, including systemic discrimination, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, sexuality, gender identity, disability, genetic makeup, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

It is disappointing to hear that the moment Howard threatens a wedge issue, the ALP's nice pretences on human rights go out the window. You know as well as I do that marriage is not just a symbolic matter, and that it gives a huge swath of rights with regard to property, children, medical care and superannuation. If you cannot deal with the idea of calling it "marriage", where is your proposal to allow for civil unions to ensure that same sex couples have equal access to those rights? Superannuation rights are just one tiny element of the partnership rights that marriage confers and which should be equally accessible to all Australians. Selling us out, so that you can please a minority of extreme conservatives, in return for a superannuation amendment which has been proposed over and over again by the Greens is just not good enough.

As an election issue, same sex marriage is dead in the water. The majority of australians are fair minded and really don't give a damn whether same sex people get married - it's their own business, and married people have enough to worry about looking after their own marriages and their own kids. To follow John Howard following George W Bush in a vain attempt to get some election "bounce" out of discriminating against ordinary Australians shows not only cowardice, but also a pathetic lack of originality.

Don't pretend that this is merely a status quo position - in supporting Howard, you are making a direct attack on me, my partner, our relationship, and classing us as second-class citizens. We will do everything we can to defend our relationships from prejudices such as yours and Mr Howard's.

Yours sincerely,

here's what i sent to the smh and herald-sun:
ranty number two:

ALP Leadership: short & sweet?

After Mark Latham came to power, there seemed to be a shift in the way the ALP was doing things. For a while, unlike in the last federal election, the ALP was showing some measure of leadership, through differentiating themselves from the government, rather than blindly following John Howard's lead into the cowardly politics of racism and xenophobia. Many of us were pleased to see Latham take a different stance on the war in Iraq - a stance which reflects the common feeling of many Australians that the invasion of Iraq has cause more problems than it has solved, and has caused a huge amount of human suffering in the process. At last it looked like the ALP might have a go at setting their own agenda, rather than trailing along behind John Howard's.

On the issue of same sex marriage the Howard government has once again pinned its desperate election hopes on scapegoating a minority group. We've come to expect that from Howard - the surprise comes in Nicola Roxon's "me too" response. By following suit, the ALP has ditched its emerging leadership of the issues, and has chosen to copycat Howard's blatant discrimination against people in same sex relationships. Political strategy is one thing, but what about the basic premise that the major parties have a policy platform which voters can rely on them to follow?

The ALP platform and constitution clearly states:

"Labor supports legislative and administrative action by all Australian governments to eliminate discrimination, including systemic discrimination, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, sexuality, gender identity, disability, genetic makeup, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Sadly, it looks like the moment Howard threatens a wedge issue, the ALP's nice pretences on human rights and anti-discrimination go out the window. It is bad news for all of us who felt for a moment there that Latham was ready to distinguish the ALP as a party which actually stood for something. After 8 years with John Howard, the electorate is sick of political cynicism. Just look at the response to the budget - it looks like a bribe, smells like a bribe, and we're not going to be fooled for a second. We know that Howard won the last election on the back of half-truths and fear mongering, and we're ready to hear from a party that can show courageous leadership on the issues, rather than pursuing a lowest common denominator of prejudice.

As an election issue, same sex marriage is dead in the water. The majority of Australians are fair minded and really don't give a damn whether same sex people get married - it's their own business, and married people have enough to worry about looking after their own marriages and their own kids. For the ALP to follow John Howard following George W Bush in a vain attempt to get some election "bounce" out of discriminating against ordinary Australians shows not only cowardice, but also a pathetic lack of originality.

Marriage is not just a symbolic matter - it gives a huge swath of rights with regard to property, children, medical care and superannuation. Whether or not Howard likes it or not, gay and lesbian people fall in love, buy houses together, have children, get sick, and die just like anyone else. Don't our families deserve the same basic rights and protection as heterosexual families? If the ALP is merely queasy about calling equal rights for same sex couples "marriage", then where is their proposal to allow for civil unions to ensure that same sex couples have equal access to those rights? If marriage is an institution worth defending, then it is worth defending for everyone. Religious organisations are free to impose what ever moral meanings they wish on marriage, and to celebrate it with their own traditional rituals. But where marriage is incorporated into the laws of government, it should apply those laws equally, and without prejudice.

Equality and non-discrimination are enshrined within the ALP platform. The question is: does Latham have the guts to stand up for his platform, and for the rights of all Australians?

and here's the mini-rant for the letters page of the australian:
ranty number three:

Defending our families

On the issue of same sex marriage, it seems that, once again, the Howard government has pinned its desperate election hopes on scapegoating a minority group. This may be what we have come to expect from Howard, but I am sorry to see that the ALP has followed suit. Rather than showing leadership, the ALP has chosen to collaborate in blatant discrimination against people in same sex relationships. The moment Howard threatens a wedge issue, the ALP's nice pretences on human rights go out the window. Superannuation rights are just one tiny element of the partnership rights that marriage confers and which should be equally accessible to all Australians. To follow John Howard following George W Bush in a vain attempt to get some election "bounce" out of discriminating against ordinary Australians shows not only the cowardice of the ALP, but also a pathetic lack of originality.

Don't pretend that this is merely a status quo position - in supporting Howard, the ALP is making a direct attack on me, my partner, our relationship, and classing us as second-class citizens. We will do everything we can to defend our families from Mr Howard and Mr Latham's prejudices.

--------------
Oh, did i mention? I've met the woman i'm going to marry, and no stinky little politicians are going to stand in our way!