Galus Australis – mikeybear

Double standards much, Nina?

When it comes to combatting homophobia the JCCV claim they don’t run programs that bring in change on the ground. However the existence of their grass-roots education program combatting youth alcohol abuse betrays them.

On May 1 2012 Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) President Nina Bassat appeared on JOY 94.9FM with Doug Pollard and Rod Swift. The interview is available online here and the podcast can be downloaded here.

During this interview Doug Pollard asked if there had been any developments arising from the report the JCCV’s GLBT Reference Group put out in November 2011. Nina’s response (at 4:20) was:

“We’re not a body that can actually bring in change on the ground. It’s up to our affiliates to do that.”

This response needs to be considered in relation to the JCCV’s Youth Alcohol Program that has been running for a few years now. I include some statements from various sources relating to the YAP:

“Last year, the JCCV also set up the Youth Alcohol Project and has been working with our schools to combat issues like teenage binge drinking, something to which Jewish kids are certainly not immune.” — Malki Rose on Galus Australis

“The JCCV has responded strongly to information that Jewish youth as young as eleven and twelve are drinking alcohol in excessive amounts, Jewish teenage binge drinking appears to be rising and young Jewish females are drinking alcohol at a rate equal to the general teenage community.” — John Searle (via the JCCV)

“This month the JCCV Youth Alcohol Project Officer Debbie Zauder hosted Focus Groups for Year 6 Jewish School students and another for parents of Year 6 Jewish School students. The Focus Group aims were to inform the Youth Alcohol Project and the curriculum that the JCCV will deliver to the Jewish community in its forthcoming educational program on alcohol. Participants in both Focus Groups commented on the social, peer and in an increasing fashion parental pressure that Jewish youth experience to drink alcohol.” — Debbie Zauder (via AJN)

In addition, there have been a number of stories about the JCCV’s YAP in the Jewish print media recently. I attach one such story from June 22, 2012 at the end. In particular it’s worth noting this paragraph:

Debbie Zauder, JCCV Youth Alcohol Project (YAP) manager, explained that the DAW 2012 theme, “Look After Your Mind”, fits perfectly with the YAP education programs for Jewish schools. The programs offer students and parents the chance to hear experts in the alcohol and drug field discuss the short and long term effects alcohol has on the adolescent brain.

It seems, to me at least, that there’s a significant disconnect between the words that Nina Bassat said on JOY and what her organisation is actually doing. A more honest answer that Nina could have given Doug would be something along the lines of:

“The JCCV can’t actually be seen to be promoting homosexuality for fear of backlash from the Orthodox bloc of organisations that effectively control the JCCV. My hands are tied and as much as I would like to see intolerant behaviour toward homosexuality stamped out in the Jewish community, just like we are actively intolerant of anti-Semitism in the wider community, I have a job as President to keep and don’t want to risk a vote of no confidence that would see me being asked to step down. And that’s why you have seen no outcomes initiated by the JCCV further to the report.”

Whilst I’m on the topic of Orthodox, Nina Bassat went on in the interview to say (at 10:20):

“I think the Orthodox community is very open to discussion. … I don’t think our community is closed.”

To which I ask Nina why the JCCV has shut down all discussion about the submission that the Rabbinic Council of Victoria made to the Australian Senate stating their opposition to marriage equality. This submission goes against the recommendations of the JCCV’s report and is clearly an embarrassment to the JCCV.

Double standards much?

22 Jun 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition
AJN STAFF

Community unites to topple teen tipple

“Recent research proves alcohol … does permanently affect the development … of the adolescent brain.”
Debbie Zauder
YAP manager

JEWISH community leaders have joined together to show their support for this week’s Drug Action Week (DAW).

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV), Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV), David Southwick MP and Chevra Hatzolah have all spoken out in support of the initiative from the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (AODCA).

Debbie Zauder, JCCV Youth Alcohol Project (YAP) manager, explained that the DAW 2012 theme, “Look After Your Mind”, fits perfectly with the YAP education programs for Jewish schools. The programs offer students and parents the chance to hear experts in the alcohol and drug field discuss the short and long term effects alcohol has on the adolescent brain.

“Recent research absolutely proves that alcohol, especially binge drinking which is popular with Jewish teenagers, does permanently affect the development and condition of the adolescent brain,” Zauder said.

Nina Bassat, president of JCCV, said the media coverage of a Purim party in Melbourne earlier this year, in which several teens were treated for drunkenness, should serve as a stark reminder of the perils of binge drinking among our youths. model appropriate drinking behaviour and to fully discuss with their children their family’s values and expectations in relation to alcohol,” she said.

Rabbi Yaakov Glasman, RCV president, commented that “Excellent work has been done in educating school students through the YAP program, but clearly the message hasn’t got through to many older teens and adolescents.”

Member for Caulfield David Southwick said the state government was taking appropriate steps to educate parents.

“Thanks to the state government’s leadership here in Victoria we have legislation which makes it crystal clear that parents are responsible for ensuring young people do not engage in unsafe drinking practices. Parents can now face fines up to $7167 for allowing their kid’s friends to drink in their homes without parental consent, an act that was legal under previous laws.”

New Israel Fund comes to Australia

New Israel Fund is coming to Australia and I have a feeling this new player in the Australian Jewish scene is going to usher in a breath of fresh air. They have strong credentials in GLBT rights which is particulary promising.

[SOURCE 1] [SOURCE 2] [SOURCE 3]

NIF is coming to Australia and I have a feeling this new player in the Australian Jewish scene is going to usher in a breath of fresh air.

From a GLBT perspective this is very exciting, simply by looking at their list of Civil and Human Rights Grantees:

Al-Qaws – for Sexual and Gender Diversity in the Palestinian Society

Promotes the development and rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community within Palestinian society.

and

Assiwat (through Kayan)

Provides a safe and anonymous space for gay Palestinian women; pursues recognition for their sexual and gender identity and promotes their rights through personal empowerment, raising awareness and public education.

Further, their Shatil program advocates for issues such as Freedom of Choice in Marriage (video) and to give voice to Orthodox lesbian women in Israel.

NIF Australia are on Facebook. That seems to be the best place to connect with them currently. Also check out We Are NIF.

I sincerely hope they engage with the local GLBT community, both Jewish and wider, and build some strong bridges.

Conjugating Jew

[SOURCE]

Best check with the Jewish grammaticists over at Galus Australis. They seem to be authorities on the use of the English language when it comes to sexual orientation.

Malki Rose:

The UN do not use the Torah to discriminate against GLBTs Gregory.
The UN have no belief in the Torah whatsoever, so please stop using the Torah and religion as your scapegoat for discrimination against GLBTs, it is inaccurate.

Me:

Malki, please refer to GLBT people as ‘GLBT people’ in future and not as ‘GLBTs’. We are people, just like you.

Anthony Frosh:

Michael,
Despite your protest to Malki, I’ll still not mind if you call me a “Jew” rather than a “Jewish person”.

Michael:

Frosh,
The word ‘Jew’ is a noun. The acronym ‘GLBT’ is commonly used as an adjective.
It would be a start if the people who defined themselves by excluding everyone else would accept some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in.
Michael.

Malki Rose:

Frosh,
You know many GLBT’s refer to themselves as ‘GLBT’s’. It just means gayS, lesbianS, bi-sexualS and transgenderS.
It something we do in English. Its called using a word in plural form.
Its quite silly that some people find plural forms to be so offensive.

Respect!

Anti-Defamation Commission – an organisation in conflict with itself

In October I wrote to the Anti-Defamation Commission in relation to the issues I addressed in my previous blog, calling for them to take action.

I received this initial response to my message:

From: ADC Reception <Reception@antidef.org.au>
Date: 14 October 2010 10:48
Subject: RE: Call for Anti-Defamation Commission to echo ADL’s Denouncement of Carl Paladino’s Comments Denigrating Homosexuality
To: Michael Barnett <mikeybear69@gmail.com>
Dear Michael,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We are taking this matter seriously; the ADC Board will consider it at its next meeting on Wednesday 20^th October. We will let you know the outcome of our discussion shortly after.
Kind Regards
Alain Grossbard
Acting Chairman ADC

I followed up with the ADC after their board meeting and received the following response:

From: ADC Reception <Reception@antidef.org.au>
Date: 25 October 2010 09:55
Subject: RE: Call for Anti-Defamation Commission to echo ADL’s Denouncement of Carl Paladino’s Comments Denigrating Homosexuality
To: Michael Barnett <mikeybear69@gmail.com>
Dear Michael,
The Board has declined to comment.

Curiously, the matter goes from genuine concern to silence. But really, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, because we know the ADC won’t comment on anti-gay hate in the Jewish community.

With the immediate past JCCV President Anton Block being appointed to chair of the ADC, I don’t expect this situation to change. The ADC’s parent organisation is the JCCV (not B’nai B’rith as the Jewish News continues to misinform all). The ADC tows the JCCV’s “let’s not upset the Orthodox” stance and remains muzzled by them.

Deborah Stone, Research Director at the ADC says on Galus Australis:

But I’m quite clear on my Jewish identity and my rights as a Jew to be free from hate speech. I’m also clear on my responsibility, as a Jew and as a human being, to advocate for respectful pluralism in Australia. So when an opportunity to use my media and research background came up at the Anti-Defamation Commission, it seemed a good fit.

Of course, but don’t let a little hate toward gay people get in the way of you doing your job. We all know anti-gay hate isn’t nearly as harmful as anti-Jew hate. Jewish Gays can cop it, can’t we? We don’t really matter all that much. A little suicide or self-mutilation here and there won’t matter to the families of the young kids who feel they can’t cope with the anti-gay hate that the ADC won’t address. But god help those who throw anti-Jew shit at Jews. Lord knows the ADC and it’s overlords at the JCCV will turn heaven and earth to seek adequate redress.

The ADC needs to take a good look at itself. The JCCV needs to take a good look at itself. The Jewish community needs to ask itself if they want to be represented by these self-serving, gutless organisations that elect egotistical leaders in acts of nepotic arrogance.

They don’t give a fuck about the welfare of your kids. Only their egos and political careers.

Colt David Hansen: gone but not forgotten

Just recently I wrote about the It Gets Better Project, in response to the spate of youth suicides in the USA. This amazing project, by Dan Savage and his team, has brought visibility of suicide in same-sex attracted youth as high as the office of the President of the USA.

A bit further back in May I wrote about victims of religious bigotry. Sadly this problem shows no signs of going away. There are still desperately unhappy people who are struggling with their sexuality and not receiving the help they need from their parents, family and peers. Worse still, their plight is often diminished or simply erased.

Thanks to some great people out there, such as Eric Ethington, this invisibility is being turned around. We are able to get a better understanding of the true person, and their life, loves and the wonderful impact they had on their friends and networks they contributed to.

Just the other day Colt David Hansen of Salt Lake City, Utah died. It is unclear if his death was accidental. From what I understand he had been struggling with depression and questions were raised as to whether this was due to a conflict with the Mormon faith. We may never find out the truth. You can read about the story as it has come to hand on Eric’s site “Pride in Utah” here and here. Also take time to read the comments from friends and family.

Colt David Hansen

I have been trying to raise awareness around this issue of religious intolerance of homosexuality in the fundamentalist/Orthodox Jewish world for a long time now. One year ago I wrote an article about it on Galus Australis and just recently have contributed to a discussion on the same site about some seemingly misguided efforts to address it in the local Jewish community.

It’s only a matter of time before news of a suicide due to intolerance of sexuality comes to light in this community. I don’t want this to happen but it is inevitable. Right now the community is for the most part burying its collective head in the sand about it. There has been some superficial discussion, but for the most part the community leadership won’t acknowledge the problem and is certainly not in any hurry to address it.

A child needs more than just a mum and a dad as an ideal paradigm

The following comment (excerpt) was posted on the Jewish web site Galus Australis recently:

Geoff Bloch says:

September 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm

…

Lest I be called a bigot and various other similar epithets, may I hasten to add that I acknowledge the difficulty in maintaining a secular argument against homosexuality (although they do exist) and I don’t believe we should pry into people’s bedrooms (only two weeks ago we read hanistarot ladonai eloheinu – hidden sins are left to God, they are not our concern). I also readily concede that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality – there would not be a clear biblical prohibition against it were it not perfectly natural (it only seems unnatural to heterosexuals who have been raised in societies which honour a rather different paradigm). Moreover, how can its universality otherwise be explained?

But by the same token, I personally think it should be more than enough for the gay lobby that the mainstream be tolerant of their preference. Regrettably, the gay lobby wants society to affirm that homosexuality is as desirable a preference as heterosexuality on which the building block of society, namely the family, should be based.

I requested a clarification from the author around his use of the word “regrettable” and received this response:

Geoff Bloch says:

October 5, 2010 at 5:25 am

I have been asked by a reader to clarify a comment I made in a previous post that although the mainstream should be tolerant of gays’ sexual preference, it was regrettable that the gay lobby wants society to affirm that homosexuality is as desirable a preference as heterosexuality on which the family should be based.

I affirm that comment because, amongst other things, it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm. I should not, however, be taken to imply that a mother and a father would necessarily do a better job raising a child than would a same sex couple in all cases. Stating such a general principle would be absurd.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the language used in these comments. They show a person who does not appear to have any close connections with gay men or women, and perhaps a person who does not see gay people simply as people. However, that is an aside to what I am writing about.

The author makes the statement: “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm”. Presumably the author is referring to the biological parents of a child, namely the woman and man whose genetic material formed the child.

I find myself trying to understand what exactly an “ideal paradigm” is. Superficially, it probably means “if everything was perfect”. One might ask the question “what is perfect?” and then go on to ask “by whose standards?” We might all have our own interpretation of these concepts. Some may even defer to a higher authority, if that’s what they believe in.

I need to prefix the following statement by saying that I am not a student of biology, so I hope to be corrected if what I am about to write is incorrect. A lesson in evolutionary biology would reveal that all living things have arrived at where they are because of mutations that occur during genetic reproduction. Given these mutations, which occur naturally and effectively uncontrollably, one could say that it is because of the imperfections in nature that we have arrived where we are today, as decendents of primitive cellular organisms, via way of the apes, over many millions of years.

It is that there are imperfections in nature that are so vital to our existence that I wish to challenge the notion of an “ideal paradigm”. In nature, there is nothing “ideal”. There are simply life-forms that adapt to their environment successfully and others less so. The life-forms that adapt best become prolific, and the ones that don’t adapt so well are prone to extinction.

With this in mind I put it that “ideal paradigms” are contrary to the way nature works and that there is no “ideal”; only successful and unsuccessful.

I would like to explore the notion of it being ideal that a child have both a mother and a father. This does sound good, and why wouldn’t anyone want a child to have a mum and a dad? It is after all what nature gave us.

So here we have a child with a mum and a dad. It’s ideal, and presumably best, according to the author. The child has a lot of needs, in order to grow up healthy and well adjusted. Let’s assume the parents are both capable of supplying the child with all that it requires, namely a safe home, clothing, bedding, food, education, entertainment, love, constant and abundant care, financial stability, a happy household, and so on. This child is really lucky because it’s mum and dad provide it everything it needs, and maybe more.

But wait a minute. Not everyone’s household is quite like this. Sure, plenty of kids have a mum and a dad, but do they all have the rest? Lots of parents are unemployed, or cannot provide a decent meal, or are unwell, or are abusive, or cannot afford to rent a nice home, or are just not capable of providing everything the child needs. Yet the child has a mother and father, and this is good, because that’s ideal, according to the author.

Let’s consider a different scenario. A child has two dads or two mums, simply due to circumstances. One of the parents will most likely be biological, the other not. Now take the scenerio of this child’s parents being able to provide an identical, ideal family scenario as I described above. The only difference being that both parents are the same gender.

Compare the “ideal” situation of the child having a mum and a dad, who can only provide a scant, bare-bones existence, with the less preferred situation of the child with two dads or mums, who can provide a delightfully abundant existence.

I don’t think it takes a genius to see that the child coming from the impoverished household is more likely to suffer in their development, either physically, emotionally or both, whilst the child from the plentiful environment will probably thrive in most areas.

The point I am making here is that when the author writes “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father as an ideal paradigm” he should actually be saying “it is my opinion that children are entitled to a mother and a father, who are healthy, happy, intelligent, employed, financially stable, and love each other, as an ideal paradigm”.

That would be great, in an ideal world. However we live in a real word, one that mostly doesn’t conform to ideals, and we have to make do. So if a child has two loving mums or two loving dads I’d say that’s a pretty ideal situation to be in and be satisfied with that. Anyone wanting more is being unrealistic and unfair.

Malki Rose on John Searle’s patronising response to a bogus issue

[SOURCE]

On Galus Australis Malki Rose talks about the Jewish Community Council of Victoria’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Reference Group. I have written about this ‘reference group’ a number of times.

I refer to a section of Malki’s article on Galus, followed here by some correspondence between Geoffrey Zygier of the JCCV and myself, and finally ask a question of Malki.

Mr Searle said that the GLBT reference group, comprising of a mix of individuals who had approached him with their concerns, also seeks to gauge the mental health concerns and risks, which young GLBT Jews may be facing.

Thus far, the reference group, which includes a qualified psychologist, has noted that there are relatively few instances of discrimination or vilification being perpetrated against GLBT Jews by ‘straight’ Jews.

Perhaps it is possible that smaller numbers of openly gay Jews equates to less instances of vilification or discrimination?

In speaking with Mr Searle, I suggested that some of the discrimination and exclusionary behaviour may also be too subtle to measure and also far more prevalent in the Orthodox community where the Halachic concerns play a stronger role in the community’s treatment or subtle exclusion of GLBT Jews.

Many GLBT Jews, having been excluded by the Jewish community as deviant or ‘people best avoided’, become disenfranchised and abandon the Jewish Community, seeking solace in the potentially more accepting embrace of the non-Jewish GLBT community, whose inclusiveness seems much more all encompassing.

On the surface this sounds really good, but there’s a very big trick being played by John Searle. The JCCV released a statement for Mental Health Week on October 4 2010. As I did in 2009, I asked the JCCV to make mention in this statement of the mental health issues that same-sex attracted Jews face. Of course, the JCCV obliged in making some mention of the issue, but also as in 2009, this year they again deflected the problem from the real issue affecting closeted same-sex attracted people in the Jewish community to the diversionary issue of Jews in the GLBT community.

I wrote to Geoffrey Zygier about this, as he was the contact for the media release, expressing my concern over the language used:

From: Michael Barnett
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2010 1:37 PM
To: Geoffrey Zygier
Subject: In response to the JCCV Media Release: Assistance for those in Need

Hi Geoffrey,

I refer to the JCCV media release “Assistance for those in Need” issued yesterday.

You state “There are also particular concerns about mental health issues faced by members of the GLBT communities.”

As I have previously advised the JCCV, and as Professor Anne Mitchell would have advised the JCCV GLBT Reference Group earlier this year, the problems that same-sex attracted people experience that lead or contribute to mental health issues, self harm and suicide are frequently happening to people who do not identify with the GLBT community. To state otherwise is misleading.

Urgent attention needs to be paid to people in the Jewish community who are struggling with their sexuality or who are in the closet. It is the intolerance of homosexuality that is the problem, not because people are same-sex attracted.

I strongly urge the JCCV to acknowledge this situation, and stop inferring the problem is only or mainly with people in the GLBT community.

I would appreciate a response on this matter and would be happy to have a discussion with you if you require further clarification.

Regards,
Michael.

I received this response:

From: Geoffrey Zygier
Date: 8 October 2010 14:53
Subject: RE: In response to the JCCV Media Release: Assistance for those in Need
To: Michael Barnett

Hello Michael

I accept what you say and the statement was not meant to infer otherwise. On reflection it could have been phrased more clearly.

Good Shabbos

Geoffrey

Geoffrey Zygier I Executive Director I Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV)
The Voice of Victorian Jewry
306 Hawthorn Road South Caulfield VIC AUST 3162
03 9272 5579 I 0413 731545
http://www.jccv.org.au

I then sent the following email, which currently remains unanswered:

From: Michael Barnett
Date: 8 October 2010 15:24
Subject: Re: In response to the JCCV Media Release: Assistance for those in Need
To: Geoffrey Zygier

Thank you for this Geoffrey. Would you consider issuing an amended media release, with an appropriate revision of this statement?

Perhaps: “There are also particular concerns about mental health issues faced by members of the Jewish community who are same-sex attracted or who have a gender identity disorder.”

I believe it would be a really positive way to move forward, especially considering the serious nature of the issue.

Regards,
Michael.

Yet as Malki writes above, John Searle is talking about GLBT people being excluded or ill-treated by others in the Jewish community. This is not the real problem, if it is even a problem. If the truth be known, it is actually a diversion, set up to show the JCCV’s funding source that it is doing something to include GLBT people in the community.

Searle refuses to engage on the topic that is the most serious, the one where people who are same-sex attracted, who do not identify as GLBT, are not even able to talk about their situation and live in fear of expressing their true sexual orientation.

I ask Malki to explain why she is supporting this action to address a ‘bogus’ issue and is not challenging the JCCV on why they are side-stepping the real issue? I understand that “something is better than nothing”, but this “something” is extremely patronising.

Are bullies a victim of bullying?

[SOURCE]

I recently wrote a blog on bullying [see here]. The person I was writing about has now described how she was previously a victim of bullying and relates her experience. It makes a really interesting read:

…

Ilana Leedssays:

September 27, 2010 at 5:21 pm

B’H

…

Violence is bullying and most bullies will not sit and debate or discuss because fear drives them and their life is about power and somehow justifying their methods of denigration of others in order to justify their erroneous ideas.
I have been a victim of bullying and lost my teaching position because someone wanted to teach me a lesson about who is boss. Real leaders are not afraid of dissent because only with dissent do we learn and grow. If we all agreed with one another, what a strange world it would be.
I don’t care what culture, colour, gender or sexuality you are, respect is paramount in dealing with others and a good sense of humour.

One would expect a victim of bullying would be a little more understanding of the issues, especially when it comes to their personal views on homosexuality.

Clearly it’s not always the case.

Ilana Leeds – the biggest bully in town

Ilana Leeds. Fundamentalist Jew. Homophobe. Bigot. Hater. Bully.

Ilana Leeds declared war on homosexuality today. She wrote some comments on Galus Australis (here and here):

…if they want marriage and all the other things that go with it,(Like the adoption of children) they need to give up their deviant practices and return to a heterosexual lifestyle and put themselves in order.

and

…those poor sick individuals who have to follow their unnatural desires and indulge in sexual practices that are not normal.

and

No I feel discriminated against, because I am not allowed to hold the view that homosexuality is deviant sexual behaviour, which it is.

It’s easy to understand how a person so steeped in their fundamentalist religious lifestyle can hold these extreme views. It’s because she lives in an extremely blinkered world, and in that world there are a lot of people who are ignorant of understanding and accepting the diversity of human sexuality.

What’s less easy to understand is how someone so bigoted and hateful as Ilana Leeds can be genuinely concerned about the hot topic of bullying in schools. She has a background in secondary education. You can read all about it on her LinkedIn profile (PDF). Further, she seems to be so interested in the topic of bullying in schools that she felt driven to write a novel about it, as you can see on her Twitter profile. Her latest tweet was:

I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if she didn’t get past the first line.

And now “educator” and anti-bullying crusader Ilana Leeds has submitted a snide comment to my previous blog:

Author : Ilana Leeds (IP: 115.128.58.22 , 115.128.58.22)
E-mail : nobullies@education.com.au
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=115.128.58.22
Comment:
B’H
Only hateful sweetie pie, because you don’t like what I am saying and if it did not touch a raw chord and have an element of truth you would not react so hard.
Have a nice day.

So here you have it. One the one hand Ilana Leeds calls homosexuals deviants and unnatural, and on the other hand she claims to be concerned about bullying at schools. My guess is that the part of her brain that allows her to believe in god has grown so big that’s it’s squashed the part of her brain that bestows her intelligence and reason to the size of a shrivelled pea.

Often school kids are bullied because they are gay. And often they are the most likely candidates for suicide or self-harm. Any intelligent educator would know this, or be able to easily find it out, unless they have their head firmly lodged up their arse.

Ilana Leeds is one of the biggest bullies in town and as an educator she should be ashamed of herself.

Ilana Leeds, a victim of Jewish religious brainwashing

Ilana Leeds posted a hateful comment on Galus Australis. She is a narrow-minded bigot who contributes to the high rate of youth suicide.

[SOURCE]

Ilana Leeds posted a hateful comment on Galus Australis:

1. Same sex marriage – I do not particularly (along with a few others) like having homosexuality presented to me as ‘normal’. It is not and while I do not advocate discrimination against people who are practicing homosexuals, I think if they want marriage and all the other things that go with it,(Like the adoption of children) they need to give up their deviant practices and return to a heterosexual lifestyle and put themselves in order. Children deserve to have a normal family situation as far as possible.

Ilana Leeds believes her god demands she say this because she’s been brainwashed to believe it.

Ilana Leeds is a narrow-minded bigot whose attitudes and beliefs contribute to the high rate of youth suicide.

Her partner in crime Shoshana Silcove is just as shameful.