Challenging religious bigotry
On March 7, 2012, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a historic speech asking countries around the world to decriminalize same sex relationships, and end discrimination of LGBT people.
Peter Madden and Warwick Marsh would make excellent homosexual lovers, but which one would go top?
[SOURCE]
I reckon Peter Madden and Warwick Marsh would make great homosexual lovers. Two wonderful role models of Australian masculinity. But which one would be the man and which one would be the woman in that relationship? Coz we all know that every relationship has male and female roles.
I also wonder which one would go top and which one bottom. Perhaps they’d take turns, one going for it first, then flipping and going the other way. I bet they’d both get down and dirty, squealing like stuck pigs, and there might even be some santorum being shared, coz I’m sure they’d be lapping up the post-coital love juices.
Well, that’s just my fantasy, a bit like their fantasy, that all homosexual relationships are disgusting and dangerous and that it’s ok to vilify homosexuals.
Oh, and if they don’t like that gays want to marry a same-sex partner, I’m of the opinion that their choice of life partner is pretty sucky too and that they could have done a lot better.
Monash University believes it’s acceptable to have an association with an academic who likens homosexuality to incest and bestiality. Would it foster as good a friendship with a known Holocaust denier?
[SOURCE]
Monash University has issued the following statement regarding Dr David Irving:
Monash University is home to freedom of expression amongst our diverse staff and student population and encourages expert academic views, however Dr David Irving is not commenting on behalf of the University or the Faculty of Arts and the University does not endorse his comments. Monash University reiterates its respect for the dignity of all human beings, regardless of belief in the Holocaust.
They have further advised that Dr David Irving holds an adjunct/honorary role at the university, which entitles him to an email address and entry in the university’s staff directory.
Dr David Irving has expressed a number of vehemently and distressing racist and anti-semitic views as published on the Australian Supremacist Association web site. These views were further substantiated by the mX newspaper in an interview they conducted with him.
Monash University begins their vision and long-term strategy with:
Monash is a university of progress and optimism.
and continues with:
The areas of focus outlined by Monash Futures include:
- the ability to attract, recruit and retain the world’s best talent in both the academic and professional staff cohorts
- ensuring we have the reputation to attract the best students – to make Monash their university of first choice
Dr David Irving is a person with virulent, historically incorrect and disproven views on the Holocaust. If Monash is truly “a university of progress and optimism” then people with antisemitic, racist and nihilistic views toward the Holocaust are antithetical to this vision and have no place in the university’s ranks.
I contend that whilst Monash University continues the adjunct/honorary appointment of Dr Irving and whilst he has any opportunity to engage in any manner in the academic realm, through or on behalf of the university, Monash University are doing the greatest disservice to their students, their reputation, their vision and humanity as a whole.
I ask Monash University to make the continuance of Dr David Irving’s adjunct/honorary role conditional on him refraining from promulgating a nihilistic discourse on the Holocaust in any official and/or public capacity and to obtain from him a written assurance of this understanding.
If Monash University sincerely respects the dignity of all human beings, regardless of “racial purity”, they will ensure people with nihilistic attitudes toward the Holocaust have no voice on their campuses.
I suggest anyone who has a concern about the university’s ongoing association with Dr David Irving contact Professor Ed Byrne, Monash University Vice Chancellor and President directly.
—
If this scenario would outrage you, sign this petition.
In just one week Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen’s steadfast desire to promote his bigoted, antiquated and intolerant views on homosexuality have successfully managed to cause the leadership of the Australian Jewish community and Monash University to distance themselves from him.
[SOURCE]
Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen had a goal of bringing harmony to this world:
Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen received a PhD in social philosophy from Monash University, Melbourne and rabbinic ordination in the Kollel Menachem Lubavitch, Melbourne, of which he was Programme Director, and from the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Rabbi S.Y. Cohen. He also founded the Institute for Judaism and Civilization in 1998, helping to bring together the two worlds of religious tradition and secular society in discussion and, ultimately, harmony.
He completely missed the mark in achieving harmony. In fact he’s succeeded in creating more social division and unrest than he probably ever have imagined he was capable of.
In just one week Cowen’s intolerant and bigoted views on homosexuality have led him to be shunned by the leadership of the Australian Jewish community and have caused Monash University, his Alma Mater, to distance themselves from him.
Time to rethink your strategy Rabbi?
The bullied anti-bullying campaigner joins ranks with the bully who wants to disband the life-saving anti-bullying program.
In September 2010 Ilana Leeds told us she was a victim of bullying. On Monday this week (Feb 13 2012), Ilana Leeds showed her support for Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen, a man who wants to delegitimise an anti-bullying program, simply because it affirms homosexuality.
The hypocrisy here is amazing. Really it is. It’s beggars belief that a self-professed anti-bullying campaigner is promoting the very attitudes, based on disproven junk science, that have been shown to contribute to the alarmingly high rates of youth suicide in Australia.
The bullied anti-bullying campaigner joins ranks with the bully who wants to disband the life-saving anti-bullying program.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has distanced itself from the toxic message of the homophobic Orthodox Rabbi, Dr Shimon Cowen. Whilst the it has issued statement is welcome, the message it conveys is far from sufficient.
Last Friday, February 10 2012, news came to me by way of Queer community journalist Doug Pollard that Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen had published a paper via the virulently anti-gay Australian Family Association, slamming homosexuality and along with it the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria. The SSCV web site describes itself as “Dedicated to supporting gender and sexual diversity in schools.”
Doug Pollard has a personal interest in the welfare of SSCV as he was instrumental in helping the program get off the ground. I have a personal interest in fighting homophobic intolerance in the Jewish community. So without delay I wrote to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and asked they intercede in this unpleasant matter, as they had made a commitment to countering hatred against GLBT people. Together with Doug Pollard and also Rob Mitchell of the RJM Trust we had a dialogue with the ECAJ, explaining our concerns and reasons why a prompt response from the ECAJ would be beneficial.
On Monday, February 13 2012 Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the ECAJ, issued a statement indicating the rabbi’s views were not representative of those of Australian Jewish community and in doing so, distanced themselves from his toxic viewpoints. To the best of my knowledge this single acts sets a precedent for the Australian Jewish community (and perhaps even globally), as there has never been an organisation representing, in part, the Orthodox Jewish community that has spoken out publicly against an Orthodox Jewish rabbi.
I have to praise Peter Wertheim and the ECAJ for their professionalism, sensitivity and swift action in handling the concern presented to them. They have told the community that it is unacceptable to vilify homosexuals and attack organisations and programs that have been established to prevent young people from bullies, especially bullies of the likes of Rabbi Cowen and his cohorts.
In saying that though, there is ample room for improvement in the position taken by the ECAJ. Their cautiously worded statement lacked the necessary gravitas to tell the Orthodox Rabbinate that they must never again speak ill of homosexuality, that they must never refer to it as an illness, that they must never offer ‘reparative therapy’ as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality and that they must actually accept that homosexuality is a normal and healthy expression of human sexuality.
I have presented the ECAJ with a statement each from the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. These statements are absolutely unambiguous in their message and leave no room for uncertainty as to what these two professional bodies believe is the best approach to the issue of reparative therapy. Yet the ECAJ has refused to publicly acknowledge these two statements. Why? It surprises me that an organisation that has access to a plethora of psychologists and psychiatrists in the Jewish community didn’t source one of each to help them understand and convey these plain language statements.
The presence of Professor Kim Rubenstein on the ECAJ executive adds the necessary relevant academic and scientific qualifications to the repertoire of the ECAJ, as she is the convenor of the Gender Institute at the Australian National University, and is well-connected on these matters. With her talents at hand, and access to a wealth of resources through the ANU, the ECAJ currently has no reason for saying “but it’s outside our area of expertise”.
I need to remind myself that the Jewish community, at its official level, is excellent at fighting hate from beyond its borders. However it is far from having perfected that art when the hate emanates from within. What is rewarding though is seeing that it is trying hard to get there.
Pride March 2012 – a wonderfully diverse snapshot of a vibrant community and it’s allies
Sunday Feb 5 2012 saw the 17th Victorian Pride March. The weather forecast was 33 degrees C, windy and thunderstorms. I guess that’s Melbourne for you.
There were close on 120 entrants in the parade (that’s organisations, not people), which is a remarkable effort. Check out the march order for the who’s who.
I was again running the Aleph Melbourne entry, ably assisted by Mike and Doobie. Through the powers of social networking and the Internet we pulled together a pleasingly sized group of guys and girls of all ages to fly the flags and show their queer pride and cultural heritage.
Joining the team this year was a straight ally, Dr Mark Cherny. I was especially pleased Mark came on board as he is trying hard to break down the barriers and isolation for same-sex attracted people in the Jewish community.
One of the highlights for me at Pride March this year was seeing Habonim Dror (or just “Habo”) enter a contingent. Habo is a mainstream Jewish youth organisation with a strong social justice conscience. When I was in New York watching the pride parade there in 2007 I was overwhelmed seeing Habo flying a massive flag and fielding a strong presence. At first I couldn’t believe my eyes, but gradually my disbelief was replaced by exhilaration, and an ear to ear grin. Wow.
And the Habo Wow has continued over the last few years here in Melbourne, with increasing numbers of Habo members joining the Equal Love Marriage Equality rallies in Melbourne. These young adults are amongst the best role models I have seen in ages. Most are not queer, but they are passionately supportive of queer equality and are prepared to stand up and show their support.
And on a windy Melbourne day in Fitzroy Street, a large group of Habo members turned up, in uniform, accompanied by placards of support and made a strong statement in support for queer equality. Thank you.
I look forward to the 2013 Pride March and the return of Habo, and Mark, and Mike (and his two Poochons) and Doobie and the rest of the great team, and hopefully many other supportive Jewish (youth) organisations, from a community that is learning gradually that it’s better to include than exclude.
P.S. I’ve posted my photos from the day on Google Photos and Facebook. You can see my photos and blogs from previous pride marches here.
The greatest harm towards members of the Australian Jewish community comes not from outside it’s high security walls, but rather, from within.
Two stories published on January 31 2012 came to my attention this week: “Safety at all costs” (The Age) and “The Jewish Press won’t be silenced” (The Jewish Press). After reading these stories it’s clear to me that the greater harm toward members of the Australian Jewish community comes not from outside it’s high security walls, but rather, from within.
The Age story talks about the tens of millions of dollars the Australian Jewish community spends on security each year and questions the merit of such a large investment:
… the inconvenient truth was that the Jewish community had not faced a terror attack in Australia for 30 years, since the Hakoah Club and Israeli consulate in Sydney were bombed on the same day.
The Jewish Press story, coming from a US-based perspective but nevertheless one that is transplantable to the local context, advises:
A significant number of suicide attempts are committed by boys from not just religious but rabbinic homes — because they thought they were homosexual and had no place in the Orthodox world they grew up in, even if they had never acted on those impulses.
If the Jewish community is serious about preventing harm to those within its ranks, which I believe it is, it should, as a matter of priority and urgency, rethink its approach to community security and how best it invests its millions of dollars. It should be addressing the real and alarming problem of youth suicide, ubiquitous amongst religious communities that are intolerant of homosexuality. Only then, when all traces of the harm have been eradicated, should the focus be placed on the less evident issues affecting the safety of the community.
My 2009 response to Rabbi James Kennard’s column on why there is such a high failure rate in marriages in the Jewish community.
The following letter was published in full (see letter “Hidden Anguish in Marriage”) in the Australian Jewish News on Nov 6, 2009, in response to Rabbi James Kennard’s Matters of Principal column “Building the blocks of marriage” (AJN; Oct 30 2009 p23).
A copy of the column appears below my letter.
In talking about why so many marriages in the Jewish community are failing, Rabbi James Kennard neglects to mention two of the most important attributes a person must bring to a marriage: honesty and integrity. Without either, any marriage is doomed before it has even begun, no matter how hard the couple perseveres.
Roughly five to 10 per cent of any population is not attracted to the opposite sex, but rather the same sex. In the Jewish community this is often conveniently swept under the carpet and ignored, if it is ever even acknowledged. Many of these same-sex attracted people get married under pressure, possibly have children, find themselves in loveless relationships and the next thing is their marriages have fallen apart and they’ve got broken homes. Sadly I’ve met all too many of these people.
What is lacking in these marriages is honesty and integrity, and the reason why is because of intolerant attitudes in the community that make it a taboo to be in a relationship with a person of the same sex. The net result is false, hollow heterosexual relationships. The Orthodox community won’t even tolerate the idea of recognising same-sex Jewish relationships, let alone considering same-sex marriages (despite the position of the federal government). In this atmosphere of intolerance, same-sex attracted people will always be second-class and the marriages they find themselves in will inevitably be unhappy.
Perseverance is not the answer to sustaining a marriage if the foundation it’s build on is one of lies. What we need to teach our children is honesty, integrity and that it’s ok to have relationships with the people they want to love, not the people they are expected to love. We might then find that the percentage of happy marriages actually increases.
Michael Barnett.
Aleph Melbourne.
Australian Jewish News
Oct 30 2009
Page 23Matters of Principal
James KennardBuilding the blocks of marriage
In an age of instant gratification, we are failing to teach our children the skills of perseverance, especially when it comes to sustaining a marriage.
GOOD news! Australia’s divorce rate last year was its lowest since 1992 and the number of marriages is on the rise. But before we become too complacent and begin to believe that we live in the land of matrimonial harmony, we must note that even this record low constituted no less than 47,000 divorces, compared to only 118,000 nuptials. Four in 10 marriages are still estimated to end in divorce.
So although the short-term trend is encouraging, the longer-term changes over decades show a significant decline in the number of marriages both commencing and enduring.
Every divorce is a personal tragedy. Often no-one is to blame, although many have to suffer. But as parents and educators, we must ask if we are preparing our children well for what will be the most important and consequential task of their adult lives – creating a loving and lasting marriage, for their own sake and that of their own children.
In some crucial respects, we are not succeeding. We are failing to teach our children to compromise or to persevere.
In striving to give our children self-esteem – a vital and difficult challenge in the world of competitive and sometimes cruel teenagers – we too often confuse self-worth with self-importance.
We put our children on a pedestal and tell each of them they are the most important person in their world. Bar and bat mitzvah parties turn into coronations of princes and princesses, with no indication that the youngster has any more to achieve in order to reach perfection.
Yet marriage requires precisely the opposite approach. Suddenly each partner in a couple has to realise that they are, at best, the second most important person in the world. They have to learn to share, to compromise and to yield. When in our children’s childhood and youth do we teach them these skills?
If a marriage hits a bumpy moment, as it often does, are future partners prepared? To the delight of advertisers and manufacturers, we live in a culture of “ending is better than mending”.
As soon as the iPod or iPhone looks tarnished, it’s time to get a new one (and that’s if we haven’t already upgraded simply because a new, slightly improved, model has been released). If a child has problems at school, the solution is to try a new one.
Clothes that suited us well 12 months ago are now “so last year”.
The same applies to challenges. In an era of instant gratification, if a problem cannot be solved quickly, it cannot be solved at all.
But marriage requires a mindset that is diametrically opposed to this cult of the new. We have to find opportunities to teach our children that often it is the old things that are worth preserving and that persevering with a problem may, in time, bring a solution.
Our children are not helped by the messages about relationships they receive from the media. The most popular movie genre, the romantic comedy, follows the same formula as the fairytale that was its cultural antecedent: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl again – and they live happily ever after.
Dramas, on the other hand, usually start with a couple in a relationship and chronicle its dissolution. So the real (and best) story, of a couple working on their marriage and making it last, is rarely told.
One message that young people learn from their peers – that may or may not be endorsed by their parents – is the devaluing of sexual intimacy. In the past, society understood that sex was reserved for marriage and, even though this convention was often ignored, the expectation itself showed how physical relations can serve as a unique bond between couples permanently committed to each other for the long term.
Now such a view seems quaint or even so antediluvian as to be laughable. But if sex is used today to say “I like you” or even to say “hello”, what is left to say “I love you”?
The decline of marriage matters. It is not only human beings – parents and children – who suffer when a family is shattered, but society as a whole. Nature (whether the designer is God or Richard Dawkins) has arranged for the children of human beings to live with their parents for longer than the young of any other species, so that they can learn values and skills with which to prosper and build the next generation. The family is the building block of society itself.
A stable family does not guarantee stable children and many single or separated parents raise happy and confident young people. But to help our own children with the challenge of building their home and hence creating their own world, we must show them that the greatest happiness may take much time to achieve, but can last forever.
Rabbi James Kennard is principal of Mount Scopus Memorial College, Melbourne. His column appears monthly.
The Jewish Holocaust Centre commemorated UN Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 25, 2012. Colin Krycer lit a candle in memory of the homosexual victims of the Holocaust. Josh Frydenberg delivered the keynote address. He also does not believe homosexual Australians should have equal rights.
International Holocaust Remembrance Day is January 27. The Jewish Holocaust Centre in Melbourne, Australia held a commemoration for this solemn occasion on Thursday January 25, 2012 (to avoid a clash with the Jewish Sabbath).
In keeping with the tradition of having a representative of the GLBT community to attend the commemoration, Colin Krycer of Aleph Melbourne accepted the invitation to light a candle in memory of the tens of thousands of homosexual men who were murdered at the hands of the Nazis.
Federal member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg MP, delivered the keynote address on the evening.
I feel compelled to express my reservations with the selection of Josh Frydenberg as keynote speaker at this event. My reservations stem from the fact that Josh Frydenberg wishes to deny equal rights for homosexual Australians and calls for a second-class status for the registration of same-sex relationships.
My view is that marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman. It is much more than a simple debate about preferred terminology.
Relationships between same sex couples are equally special but nevertheless by definition different.
These relationships are to be respected and valued for the love that they bring and the families that they build. However, the term marriage should not apply.
Civil unions, however, should be an alternative.
I know many people in our community, particularly those younger than me will not agree with my view on same sex marriage.
I hope they respect my view as I do theirs.
In the Holocaust homosexual men were denied equality and treated as lesser citizens, with reduced rights and status. There is no place for any discrimination against homosexual men and women in Australian society.
Aside from the possibility of a same-sex couple producing a biological child belonging to both parents, same-sex relationships are equal in every way to opposite-sex relationships, including those opposite-sex relationships where a biological child is not a viable or a desired option.
I ask Josh Frydenberg to understand this reality and to join the increasing ranks of Australians who understand that marriage equality, a definition of marriage that does not discriminate on the basis of gender, is in the best interests of all Australians.