Australian Gay Rights | YouTube
“Australian Gay Rights” video clip on YouTube
Challenging religious bigotry
“Australian Gay Rights” video clip on YouTube
Michael Danby MP abstains on marriage equality but calls other politicians out for abstaining on other issues.
Ah, Michael Danby. Only interested in grubbing for votes from the Jewish community, but fuck the rest of his electorate. Peasant.
From a friend this week (Dec 13):
I called Michael Danby’s office this morning and was told that he “abstained” from the marriage equality vote on 19 September. I think the woman I spoke to then realised that she’d said too much and put me through to a professional PR person, who told me to put all my questions in writing, blah, blah, blah.
So at least we have an answer; he chose to “abstain”. I didn’t even know you could abstain in the parliamentary system. Maybe abstaining means just putting up your hand to go to the bathroom …
Most ironic of all is that he chose to “abstain” on marriage equality and then created headlines yesterday for his vicious attack against Bob Carr for abstaining on the Palestine vote.
Correct, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Danby attacking Carr for having abstained:
Mr Danby described Senator Carr’s actions over the UN vote last month – and Australia’s ultimate decision to abstain – as ‘‘unforgivable behaviour for any minister in any cabinet government.’’
I wish Danby would just say that he doesn’t give a rats arse about gays, that they can go to hell and that his political career, fueled by the Jewish vote, is the only thing important to his overgrown ego.
Danby, I’d tell you to kiss my hairy arse, but that’s a pleasure saved for my partner.
Peter de Groot is standing for the City of Port Phillip and has made a useless campaign promise that appears to be a grab for the pink vote.
Campaigning on pointless promises is the third piece I’ve had published on The Stirrer.
October 24, 2012 – Politics – Tagged: City of Port Phillip, Peter de Groot, Relationships Act 2008, Relationships Register, Sandridge Ward, Victorian Registry of Birth Deaths and Marriages – no comments
Last night I got home from a solid workout at the gym, cooked myself a healthy dinner and sat down to read my emails. First cab off the ranks was a story in the Port Phillip Leader: Call for Port Phillip same-sex register*. The story is about City of Port Phillip council candidate, Peter de Groot, campaigning in the Sandridge Ward, on the promise of a establishing a relationships register for same-sex couples if elected.
I would have thought this story more appropriate for the April 1 edition, but the date on the story is October 23 2012. You see, under the Relationships Act 2008 the Victorian government established a state-wide, legal relationships register, managed by the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Read the history of this here.
I don’t see any benefit a new council-based relationships register could offer that a long established state-based relationships register doesn’t already offer. Council relationship registers don’t even confer formal legal relationship status per se.
To that end, campaigning on a platform that contains a well-intentioned but effectively useless promise smacks of a naive grab for the pink vote at best. If I was a voter in the Sandridge Ward, I’d be very cautious about voting for a candidate whose campaign platform included such empty election promises.
Rather than campaign on something useless like a council-based relationships register, a better way to spend rate-payers money would be on causes that actually benefit the community. Consider a safe space for queer youth, a support group for same-sex parents, an anti-homophobia/anti-transphobia campaign for the local community, a social group or friendly home visiting service for elderly, disabled or isolated GLBTIQ people, a queer orphans Christmas gathering, and so on.
Peter de Groot may well be a passionate human rights advocate, as his campaign page describes, but I would hope voters put the honesty, ethics, credibility and integrity of a candidate before their sexual orientation or demographic affiliation.
P.S. Check out this conversation on unChain Inc‘s Facebook page
* SOURCE ARTICLE
http://port-phillip-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/call-for-port-phillp-same-sex-register
ST KILDA Same-sex register call CANDIDATE WANTS TO END DISCRIMINATION. (2012, October 22). Caulfield Glen Eira / Port Phillip Leader [Victoria, Australia], p. 3
Michael Danby calls out Q&A as being anti-Jewish but won’t call out his political party, the ALP, as being anti-gay.
Michael Danby is the Federal MP for Melbourne Ports, an electorate that has sizeable Jewish and gay populations. He has taken a swing at ABC’s Q&A for hosting a show with Israeli content on the Jewish New Year, at a time when many in the Jewish community chose not to watch television due to religious observance.
Tony Jones, the host of Q&A, explained to that segment of Australia’s population that Q&A focusing half of its program on Monday night on Israel was because he could not get his guest Mr Pappe other than that night. Irving Wallach did a brave job on the program. But I question Mr Jones; the ABC managing director, Mark Scott; and indeed the new chairman, Jim Spigelman. This was a studied insult. Having an academically undistinguished extremist on Rosh Hashana is like having someone from Hizb ut-Tahrir advocate the abolition of Christianity and Australia on Christmas Eve.
At the same time Danby is a member of a political party that is led by the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, who believes gay people should not have equal rights before the law. He also has colleagues, including the leader, who actively voted against the rights of gay people this week. Conveniently, Danby was absent during the vote.
I have yet to see a single word of support from Michael Danby for marriage equality, despite him being apparently supportive of it. Further, I have yet to see a statement showing Michael Danby’s outrage at the lack of support from his political colleagues for voting against their party platform.
Michael Danby. Put up or shut up, but don’t have it both ways.
A letter to Joe Hockey asking him to hold true to his values and support marriage equality.
From: Michael Barnett <mikeybear69@gmail.com>
Date: 14 September 2012 01:18
Subject: A letter on an important issue, for your consideration
To: Joe Hockey MP <j.hockey.mp@aph.gov.au>
Dear Mr Hockey,
Please find attached a letter for your consideration.
I hope you have the time to afford a frank, personal and most importantly considered response.
Sincerely,
Michael Barnett.
September 14, 2012
Dear Mr Hockey,
Sixteen years ago this week, on a Tuesday afternoon in Canberra you delivered your first speech to the house. Please allow me to take you back to that day.
You spoke of wanting to make a difference:
I am in Canberra today because I want to make a contribution to the future of Australia.
You told us about your connection to the ANZACs who fought in Beersheba. You spoke of a country with a proud heritage and a strong connection to this past, and of leadership:
Our leader, General Harry Chauvel … had no choice but to infuse these young men with the belief that the future of the free world lay in their hands.
You told us why they were fighting, what it was they were putting their lives at risk for:
Their charge was more than courage. It was more than defiance against oppression. It was an act of pure faith in the future—and perhaps our finest illustration of that quality that we call the Australian spirit.
You quoted former Australian Prime Minister, George Reid on respect and vision:
There is no country in the world where the people are less paralysed by reverence to the past. There are no people in the world who have fewer fears for the future.
You pondered the connection between the ANZACs and those yet to be born Australian, and told us of the eternal nature of the spirit these brave men upheld:
One might ask what relevance that charge on Beersheba has on the Australians of today. I feel proud to be able to stand here and tell you that its spirit can still be touched by every Australian. I feel proud to think that future generations can have that same defiant spirit surging through their veins.
We heard you tell us never to give up, never to accept second best:
In many ways, Beersheba defines what it is like to be an Australian. To believe in yourself, to believe in the seemingly insurmountable, and to challenge the future.
You spoke of the uncertainty of the future, of changing attitudes and changing values:
Mr Acting Speaker, that future is all around us. The new millennium is approaching at a blinding pace and change is occurring exponentially. I suppose it is understandable for many that this change might be accompanied by growing uncertainty and angst. After all, family life is under increasing social pressure. Long accepted practices and traditions are constantly being questioned.
And then you spoke of the ideology you brought to public office, the ideology you believed would offer a way forward:
Perhaps many of us have forgotten the lesson of Beersheba. That is why I come to this parliament with the inherent belief that the answers to the challenges of the future lie in modern liberalism.
And told us of the values most important to you:
In an age where closely held beliefs and political ideology are frequently scoffed at, I wish to place on record the principles of modern liberalism that I hold dear. These include, firstly, the recognition of the inalienable rights of the individual; secondly, a belief in parliamentary democracy; thirdly, a commitment to improve our society through reform; and, finally, equality of opportunity for all of our citizens.
We heard about the formalisation of individual rights and the government’s place in securing this:
The first principle which recognises the rights of the individual was expressed in 1689 by the father of liberalism, John Locke. He wrote that the very substance of government should be the protection of individual rights, including specifically the rights of life, liberty and property.
And about social justice, liberty, disadvantage and giving a voice to those who were without one:
Despite the work of liberal and social philosophers such as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Jean Jacques Rousseau, it was not until the end of the 19th century that the concept of social justice was introduced by John Dewey. He wrote that liberty is that secure release and fulfilment of personal potentialities which take place only in wide and manifold association with others. As part of the privilege of enjoying our individual rights, we have an obligation to protect and enhance our community. That includes helping the disadvantaged, caring for the sick, speaking for the voiceless and protecting the weak.
Then you told us about “new and improved”:
The third principle of modern liberalism is our belief in reform. Liberalism has traditionally steered a course between the extremism of the far Left and the reactionary conservatism of the far Right. Liberalism is most comfortable when it is developing new ideas and setting new goals.
And how important equality was to you:
The final finger on the hand of modern liberalism is the classic doctrine of equality of opportunity.
You spoke of your disdain for discrimination, of wanting to ensure future generations were free from it and of how this is a fundamental principle of the Liberal Party:
We cannot afford in our modern and complicated world to tie the hands of our children before they are born, because discrimination from the cradle will lead to discrimination until the grave. Equality of opportunity is a part of modern liberalism that will be most aggressively defended by my Liberal Party. It is the reason why so many of my colleagues in the class of 1996 are here from all parts of Australia. That is what I believe in; that is modern liberalism.
We heard of opportunity, human dignity and how important it was for you to involve your electorate in your journey:
A true Liberal was described by Sir John Carrick in 1967 as someone who was always concerned about the welfare of the individual, for the creation of opportunities, for the preservation of human dignity and the development of human personality. I have no doubt that these modern Liberal principles will benefit all Australians in the days ahead. Most particularly, I want to ensure that the electorate of North Sydney has a prominent role in defining that future.
You spoke of impediments to equality by way of the struggle for women’s rights:
One of these challenges is in the way our community continues to treat women. We should abandon the politically correct platitudes about equality, and honestly acknowledge that there remain entrenched societal and institutional impediments to women’s equal and active participation in either or both the home or work communities.
You spoke of generosity:
The Jesuits have taught me the value of community service and the spirit of giving.
And intellectual rigour:
And my friends and legal colleagues at Corrs Chambers Westgarth have taught me the lessons of professionalism, intellectual discipline and sheer hard work.
You spoke from the heart about your values, and those of Australians past, and their sacrifices, and their spirit:
Over the days of my career I am sure that the principles I hold dear—such as integrity, honesty and loyalty—will at times be sorely tested. But, at those times, I will recall the deeds of the men of Beersheba. I will recall their courage and their fortitude. I will recall the sacrifices that they made for our nation. And I will recall that great Australian fighting spirit.
And in closing you told us of your desire to do the best for all Australians:
Together with the support and encouragement of my colleagues and the inspiration and direction of modern liberalism, we will all begin our journey. We will charge our Beershebas and we will rebuild them—and this we will do for our children and for the generations of Australians ahead.
Mr Hockey, the values and vision you brought to office on September 10, 1996 were exemplary.
In having just relived your afternoon 16 years ago I now ask you to consider your position on marriage equality. Please keep reading.
Last December you said:
JOURNALIST: Do you support same sex marriage?
JOE HOCKEY: No.
JOURNALIST: So if there was a conscience vote you would be voting against it?
JOE HOCKEY: Yes.
JOURNALIST: What are the reasons behind your thinking on that?
JOE HOCKEY: I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but Mr Hockey, in light of what you said in your maiden speech, about your grandfather who fought in Beersheeba alongside the other ANZACs, fighting for a free Australia, how can you justify this position?
You told us about Australia being a place of opportunity for all citizens, of having new ideas, of vision, of equality, of human dignity and of fighting oppression.
You spoke of the need for a defiant spirit, of reform, an opportunity for all of our citizens, for protection of individual rights and challenging the future.
You invoked the sacred legend of the ANZAC. You related their sacrifices and spoke of their spirit.
You spoke of questioning long accepted practices and traditions.
You spoke of the obligation to protect the community. Denying those who are not attracted to the opposite sex the same rights as everyone else further entrenches the belief that we are less worthy. This attitude has been proven to contribute to worse mental health and welfare outcomes for us. How is your position on marriage protecting the community in light of this?
Mr Hockey, I ask you how you can stand up before the people of North Sydney, of whom in 2010 69% were not opposed to marriage equality (49% “in favour”, 31% “against”, 20% “don’t care”) and say that you are representing their interests.
How can you honour the ANZAC legend when you uphold the removal of individual rights, liberty and equality?
Mr Hockey, I implore you to rethink your position on marriage equality. When you stand up as a representative before the people of North Sydney, and the people of Australia, and in the absence of intellectual rigour you subscribe to a position that is against the majority of your electorate and against every value you hold dear, you are not only just betraying yourself but you are betraying the values of the Liberal Party and the values of the entire nation, and in the worst possible way.
Mr Hockey, be generous. Support marriage equality.
Sincerely,
Michael Barnett.
My letter to Wayne Swan, whose is currently opposed to marriage equality.
September 1 2012
Dear Minister Swan,
Nearly 20 years ago you entered Australian politics. It was on a Monday evening in May 1993 that you delivered your first speech as the elected member of Lilley to the parliament and the people of Australia.
In your opening paragraph you stated:
“… my most important task today is to thank the people of Lilley for their support and trust. My commitment to them is to work hard, to listen to their views and to strongly represent their interests in this place.”
In 2010 News Ltd asked the people of Lilley what they thought of “Same-sex Marriage”. According to the poll 52% were in favour, 32% against and 17% didn’t care. All up a majority were in favour and 69% were not opposed to it.
You claim you will oppose marriage equality when it comes to a vote. In what way are you “strongly representing [the] interests” of the people of Lilley in taking this unrepresentative stance?
In your opening speech you paid fond tribute to your parents and spoke of how they taught you:
“… to have respect for their fellow citizens, and to always help those in need.”
You also spoke of how:
“… they believed in an Australia where every person had the right to a fair go, where ordinary people would be able to fulfil their dreams, regardless of where they came from or the social group they were born into.”
I ask you to consider how you are respecting your fellow citizens when you actively plan to deny an entire section of the Australian population the right to the same level of relationship status as everyone else.
How are people who do not choose an opposite-sex relationship getting a “fair go” when they cannot get married to the person of their choice?
How are we able to fulfil our dreams when we cannot plan and have a beautiful wedding, to which we can invite our friends and family, to declare to the world our love for each other, when you plan to deny us that right, just because of the social group we were born into? Where is the love, Minister Swan?
You spoke of your admiration for the heritage of the Labor movement and of issues important to you:
“In 1978 I went to work for two of the great warriors of the Labor movement—Mick Young and Bill Hayden. With them I received much of my early schooling in politics. They taught me the traditions of the Labor movement, and they taught me the fundamental importance of social justice.”
Tell me Minister Swan how the fundamental important of social justice is playing through when you oppose equality in our society? How is that upholding the principles of the Labor movement?
You spoke extensively on fiscal matters and employment, and said:
“This Parliament must have a decisive role in reshaping Australia, in recharging the economy and in restoring employment.”
As the treasurer of Australia you should understand the benefit $161 million dollars over three years will bring to the economy and to employment by legislating in favour of marriage equality. By upholding the status quo your actions will bleed the economy and the job market of this benefit when New Zealand legislates for marriage equality before Australia. One would not expect the Treasurer of Australia to be financially irresponsible.
Then you spoke of the welfare of children:
“Whatever we do in this place must be aimed at the long term future—the long term future of the nation and the long term future of our children. Policies to achieve that, however, will change over time.
There is increasing evidence that the welfare of same-sex attracted children suffers when they are told they are not equal in society simply due to the gender of the person they love. Similarly there is growing evidence that children of same-sex couples suffer when the relationships of their parents are deemed to be unequal to those children with married parents.
How does your stance on denying those in loving and committed relationships the right to get married, knowing the negative consequences it has on impressionable children, fit with looking to the future of our children?
Again, you spoke of the proud tradition of the Labor Party, and of its vision:
“The hallmark of the Keating Government is its vision for the future, a vision of Australia as a sophisticated independent trading nation. The hallmark of the Labor tradition is our capacity to think, to develop ideas, and to put them into action in uniquely Australian ways.”
And I ask you, Minister Swan, how is clutching to an out-dated 20th Century value the way to dignify this vision when we are well into the 21st Century? Supporting a value of a by-gone era is not thinking to the future. In fact it’s not thinking at all. In a world where places like our trans-Tasman neighbour, along with the rest of the democratic world, are moving on and adopting marriage equality, you are complicit in holding Australia in a visionless existence.
And lastly, you concluded your first address by declaring:
“The great strength of the Labor Party is its commitment to justice, fairness and dignity. I hope to represent those principles in this House.”
I put it to you, Minister Swan, that by opposing marriage equality, you are not only letting the people of Lilley and the people of Australia down, but sadly, you are letting yourself down, because there is no justice, no fairness and no dignity in denying people equality.
Your sincerely,
Michael Barnett.
My letter to the three Victorian Federal senators, Helen Kroger, John Madigan and Bridget McKenzie, who intend to vote against marriage equality
From: Michael Barnett <mikeybear69@gmail.com>
Date: 22 August 2012 02:13
Subject: A journey from your First Speech to Today
To: Senator Bridget McKenzie <senator.mckenzie@aph.gov.au>, Senator John Madigan <senator.madigan@aph.gov.au>, Senator Helen Kroger <senator.kroger@aph.gov.au>
August 22 2012
Dear Senators Kroger, Madigan and McKenzie,
Allow me to take each of you back to the day you stood before the Senate and gave your First Speech. Please take a moment to reflect upon these sage words from your opening speeches, that you delivered to your fellow Senators and to the Australian people.
You told us how your parents gave everything of themselves to make sure you had the best start in life:
“My mother and father did what it took to ensure that their children would have a fair go and be able to give life their very best shot. I have tried to say thank you by living my life in a manner that will consecrate their devotion and selflessness.”
It is clear that you understand what giving without expecting anything in return means.
You later related the wisdom of Thomas Moore:
“Family life is full of major and minor crises—the ups and downs of health … success and failure … is tied to places and events and histories. With all of these felt details, life etches itself into memory and personality. It’s difficult to imagine anything more nourishing to the soul.”
I can tell that you are a person who values families, with strong bonds that tie the people in them together.
You shared with us the words of a great Australian leader, Ben Chifley:
“I try to think of the labour movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody’s pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective – the light on the hill – which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labour movement would not be worth fighting for.”
and from this it is clear that you aspire to improving the lives of all Australians.
You opened your First Speech talking about individual freedoms and notions of equity:
“That we can all sit here today as democratically elected senators, arguing where the line is drawn between individual freedom and notions of equity, means we are truly, truly blessed.”
and later you described the strong sense of social justice that you inherited from your mother:
“The women in my family are strong, community minded, also local sporting heroes and all committed to education. My mother was a primary school teacher. Her commitment to social justice has flowed through to her children, none of whom can resist a good cause.”
Most poignantly though you told us how precious our youth are to society and how vital the social health of country communities is:
“Young people are a precious asset for our future, and our nation needs individuals who are prepared to contribute, who are engaged and who can think critically. … My own family’s involvement in local sporting clubs spans generations and sports. Participating in golf clubs, football, netball and surf-lifesaving is an integral part of what we do and what so many country families do, contributing to the physical and social health of their communities. It is an area that I look forward to supporting.”
Perhaps your strongest statement though is your closing sentence:
“My sincere hope is to contribute to this nation in a thoughtful, constructive and positive manner and to always advocate for regional Victoria.”
because this tells Australia that you genuinely care for the people you represent.
Senators McKenzie, Madigan and Kroger, your values are powerful and passionate. They convey the sort of Australian values that mean so much to every citizen.
I ask you to reflect on these sentiments from your opening speeches and bear them in mind when you are asked to cast your vote on the issue of Marriage Equality.
Senator Kroger, think about your selflessness and giving others a fair go, like those that your parents gave you.
Senator Madigan, think about bringing something better to the people and giving them a greater happiness. If the words of Ben Chifley are important to you then striving for the betterment of mankind can only come when you increase the happiness of those you represent.
Senator McKenzie, to you I place the most importance because of the opportunities you can give our young people in rural communities. Youth suicide is a scourge that affects country towns the worst, and prejudice against same-sex attracted youth drives the rates of youth suicide to alarmingly high levels. You can be a force for good and give the youth who are most precious to you a role model that will give them a better footing in life. Tell them that their relationships are something to be proud of and I can assure you that you will have an amazingly positive impact on the health of all rural communities. That would make you immensely proud and validated. The father of my previous partner was mayor of the Shire of Murrundindi, a place close to your heart no doubt. He supported and was proud of his son’s relationship with me. Please understand that love strengthens families and brings communities together.
I ask you all, Senator McKenzie, Senator Kroger and Senator Madigan, to think about what you stood for when you delivered your First Speech and hold true to those values, of giving life your best shot, selflessness, bringing something better to the people, greater happiness, working for the betterment of mankind, commitment to social justice, good causes, the preciousness of our youth, the health of our country communities and of course, a fair go for all.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Barnett.
My letter to the five Victorian Federal senators, Jacinta Collins, Michael Ronaldson, Mitch Fifield, Scott Ryan and Stephen Conroy, who’s position on marriage equality is currently undecided or undeclared.
From: Michael Barnett <mikeybear69@gmail.com>
Date: 21 August 2012 23:48
Subject: A journey from your First Speech to Today
To: Senator Jacinta Collins <senator.collins@aph.gov.au>, Senator Michael Ronaldson <senator.ronaldson@aph.gov.au>, Senator Mitch Fifield <senator.fifield@aph.gov.au>, Senator Scott Ryan <senator.ryan@aph.gov.au>, Senator Stephen Conroy <senator.conroy@aph.gov.au>
August 21 2012
Dear Senators Collins, Ronaldson, Fifield, Ryan and Conroy,
Allow me to take each of you back to the day you stood before the Senate and gave your first speech. Take a moment to reflect upon these sage words from your opening speeches, that you delivered to your fellow Senators and to the Australian people.
You told us:
“…when the state steps beyond the bounds of its competence, it is the most vulnerable who suffer …”
and that:
“I learned then that democracy and basic human liberties are not relative concepts. We must always guard against the slippery slope of moral equivalence in such affairs.”
You quoted Abraham Lincoln:
“The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere.”
and spoke of freedoms:
“Over the course of the last century it is when this is forgotten that the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity arises. Whenever we choose to do something in this place, we are removing the right and responsibility to make a personal choice—from a family, a community or an individual.”
You told us of what it means to be Liberal:
“As a young man I was drawn to the Liberal Party by a key principle: the dignity of each and every individual and the value of their own conscience.”
and of keeping an open mind and living up to the standards of those you admire and respect:
“They taught me a valuable lesson: it is not what you think that matters most; more important is your willingness to discuss it, debate it and maintain an open mind to new ideas. I am proud to say I have followed a long and diverse line of people from that organisation into this place—from Alan Missen to Rod Kemp, as well as members in the other place. I hope to live up to their record, achievements and decency.”
You told us about equality opportunity:
“I have always been committed to providing equality of opportunity. I reject the notion of equality of outcome.”
and about social justice:
“My interests have always revolved around economic and social justice.”
You told us about opportunity, choice, not imposing your views on others and free will:
“…I stand in this place as a Liberal because I am committed to opportunity and to choice. Each of us has our own world view—a frame of reference that informs the decisions we make—but, as legislators, we do not have the right to simply vote to impose our views on the community. We all have free will. The expression of that may not always please us, but it is the right of every Australian to exercise it. That is why in this place I will be influenced, but not driven by, my own personal convictions. My inclination will be towards maximising economic and personal liberty for Australians.”
and you told us about opportunity:
“That is why I am a Liberal today—because I know the importance of opportunity.”
and choice, and fighting those who restrict it:
“As Liberals, we stand for maximising choice; we stand for maximising opportunity. As a coalition government, we need to continually look for ways to maximise opportunity and to fight for it when it is being restricted.”
You told us about your support for diversity:
“Let’s embrace choice, let’s embrace variety, let’s embrace difference and excellence.”
and about the strength and quality of our relationships:
“Ultimately what determines the true quality of our lives is the quality of the relationships we have. Community is what happens when we engage. This engenders relationships we otherwise would not have undertaken in circumstances we would not have otherwise found.”
And you told us about being compassionate and considerate:
“To be a compassionate society means being able to put yourself in the shoes of another and understand what makes them different and why they find themselves in their particular circumstance. This scheme would, in a small way, help engender greater community and rebuild social capital. It is only when we keep coming back to our core Liberal values of choice, independence and responsibility that we find the policies that facilitate opportunity.”
You spoke at great length about terrorists and those who impose their beliefs on others, to restrict society’s freedoms. One of the many points you made on this issue:
“It saddens me that some within the party of Curtin now identify with those that fight freedom.”
It’s clear to me that you are against those who remove people’s liberties.
You told us about your strong stance for the rights of women.
“Labor can be proud of its record of achievements for women. I am committed to working towards further improvements in the position of women throughout Australian society.”
and about giving people “a fair go”:
“I look forward to participating in the framing of our nation’s future identity to reflect the Australian ethos of a fair go.”
Senators Collins, Ronaldson, Fifield, Conroy and Ryan, your words are truly admirable. They convey the best of what it means to be Australian, and collectively they engender the aspirations of all Australians.
When you have reflected on these sentiments from your opening speeches I hope you will bear them in mind when you are asked to cast your vote on the issue of Marriage Equality. Think about what you stood for back then and hold true to those values, of freedom, compassion, equality, social justice, the rights of women, putting yourself in the shoes of others, embracing difference, opportunity, free will, keeping an open mind, personal choices, governments not interfering, and of course, a fair go for all.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Barnett.
The Kosher Rabbis of Australia Party (KRAP) want to make sure there’s no room for double standards when it comes to the interference by Orthodox Judaism in the lives of Australian citizens and in particular vulnerable minority groups.
In the lead up to the 2013 Australian federal election two prominent organisations in Australia’s Orthodox Jewish community have joined up to create a new religious force in Australia’s political sphere. After extensive consultation and introspection the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia (ORA) and Kosher Australia (KA) have teamed up to form the Kosher Rabbis of Australia Party.
The party platform is founded on the complete kosherification of Australia, from the perspective of the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law. At present Kosher Australia provides certification for products that are acceptable under Jewish dietary laws (kashrut). However should the party win a seat in government it will propose legislation to have all food and drinks labelled “Kosher”, “Mostly Kosher” or “Non Kosher (but we’ll certify kosher for an additional fee)“. The level of certification will be based on a sliding scale of fees. Halal certification will be permitted but only under the revised name “Kosher Halal”, and of course will be subject to an additional “co-Semitic” fee.
The party also proposes legislation to counter any form of activity that falls outside that acceptable to its strict Orthodox Jewish standards. This would include a ban on both trading and driving over the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish holy days, converting churches, mosques and other non-Jewish prayer halls into up-market residential developments, cancelling Christmas and Easter, making the sale of pig meat illegal, compulsory circumcision for all boys, modest attire for women, banning masturbation, strict alignment with Catholic clergy child-abuse cover-up tactics, and enforcing a no-sex before marriage policy (with a special emphasis of the latter being a pre-requisite for all members of parliament from the Prime Minister’s office down).
The ethos of the party demands a culture free of hypocrisy in Orthodox Judaism. It feels that if it is compelled to decry the legalisation of marriage between perverted couplings of homosexuals (and lesbians), it must also decry all activities in society that come in conflict with its unforgiving religious dogma. Party head (and Chef de Douche) Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, together with party Campaign and Propaganda Manager Rabbi Chaim Ingram, say there’s no room for double standards when it comes to interfering in the lives of Australian citizens and in particular vulnerable minority groups.
Look out for a complete list of candidates and policies on the party’s web site www.krap.org.au, soon to be launched. And remember the campaign slogan: “Making our Australia more Kosher for you, one snip at a time”.
The Senate has written to advise formal receipt of my submission to their inquiry.
THE SENATE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
11 April 2012
E-mail: mikeybear69 @ gmail.com
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your submission to the above inquiry, and to advise that the committee has released it as a public document and numbered it as Submission No. a939. Any personal details, such as addresses and phone numbers, have been removed from your submission. Names have also been withheld where this has been requested. You are now free to circulate your submission to other parties should you wish to do so.
Documents provided to Senate committees become committee documents upon receipt, and it is the prerogative of the relevant committee to determine whether and how it will accept and publish such documents. In this inquiry, the committee will not be publishing on its website every submission received from individuals. That is because the committee is anticipating thousands of submissions and form/standard letters from individuals, and it is not physically possible for all of them to be published on the website due to staffing and resource limitations. As time and resources permit, the committee will publish a selection of individual submissions, representing a broad range of views that are indicative of the types of submissions that have been received by the committee. An equal number of individual submissions supporting and opposing the bill will be published.
All submissions received will be provided to members of the committee during the course of the inquiry for their consideration. At the conclusion of the committee’s inquiry, public submissions will be tabled in the Senate chamber as public documents.
Your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament which are necessary for the discharge of parliamentary functions. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence.
Yours sincerely
Committee Secretary