Rabbi Daniel Rabin posted the following on Facebook:
Was a great experience to chat with some of the Year 12 students at Bialik College today and discuss homosexuality in Judaism and issues surrounding same-sex marriage and the upcoming postal vote.
Some of the things we talked about was the great sensitivity and emotion surrounding this topic and the need to be incredibly mindful that there are differences of opinion in this regard.
People on both sides need to respect the differing views.
It is totally unacceptable to denigrate, insult or hurt others because they don’t share your opinion.
I have seen signs of “Stop the Fags” posted around and I think that is disgraceful. I have written previously, in particular about the Jewish community, that we need to be accepting and inclusive of all Jews regardless of their sexual orientation. Signs like these can cause vulnerable people to take their lives.
At the same time, if someone does not support the marriage act changing, don’t immediately call them homophobic or assume they are being hateful or bigoted.
I encourage civilized conversation on both sides and hope we can live our lives with mutual respect, courtesy and care for one another.
Rabbi Rabin is president of The Rabbinic Council of Victoria. On September 4 the RCV issued this statement (incorrectly dated September 9):
Daniel Rabin is also the rabbi at the North Eastern Jewish Centre (NEJC) in Doncaster. I grew up in Doncaster and attended the synagogue there in the 1980s and 90s. I went to Sunday school there and had my bar mitzvah there. The religious community there was a big part of my life and that of my family for many years.
I also attended Bialik College in the early 1980s.
When I was at the NEJC and at Bialik I was struggling with my sexuality. I had been struggling with it since around 1979, and the struggle continued for 16 years until 1996. During this time I had no support, no positive role models and no one to tell me that I wasn’t broken, wasn’t an aberration, wasn’t an abomination and wasn’t abnormal. I was also incessantly bullied on my perceived sexuality for most of my school years.
After I came to terms with my sexuality I stopped attending NEJC, withdrew my financial support and stopped active religious observance because I was repulsed that part of the Orthodox religious service was to read a passage from the Torah that said men who slept with men were an abomination and that the penalty for doing this was their life, or words much to that effect.
Words can hurt, even if they are token.
In 2017, the rabbi of my former synagogue has told students at my former school that people, people like him, who oppose equal treatment of all citizens under the law of Australia should not be considered homophobic, or assumed to be hateful or bigoted.
That’s fair enough. He is perfectly entitled to express those views. However simultaneously he should not be surprised when people, people like me, look at the words he uses and wonder how he could not possibly be seen to be homophobic, or assumed to be hateful or bigoted.
What Rabbi Rabin is doing is in effect asking for the law to treat people in a heterosexual relationship in a manner that advantages them over people who are in other types of legal, consensual relationships. His arguments and his logic are spurious, drawing from speculation, fear-mongering and deliberate misinformation.
Rabbi Rabin is welcome to practice his faith and to express his religious obligations within the sphere of Halacha and the remit of his responsibilities as both a congregational rabbi and the president of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria. However he is not welcome to interfere in the lives of people who wish to enter into civil marriages, especially those people who are not doing so in an Orthodox Jewish context.
To my mind, it appears as bigotry when I see religious leaders using their faith to treat as lesser or deny certain people the same rights they enjoy under civil law.
To my mind, it does appear hateful, not to mention deceitful and disingenuous, when religious leaders imply or infer that children raised by both biological parents are more deserving of their parents than children of adoptive, same-sex, gender-diverse and other parenting configurations.
To my mind, it does appear homophobic when religious leaders use their authority to spread misinformation, lies and deceitful propaganda about homosexual people, the relationships we have, the indignities we endure, and the intolerance and discrimination we face.
Rabbi Rabin asks for respect. He forgets that respect is earned, not demanded. At present, while Rabbi Rabin asks for people, people like him, to deny me the right to marry the man I love, the man I want to have look after me in sickness and in health, the man who I would give my life for, I feel little respect for his views.
Rabbi Daniel Rabin could learn a few things from those who want to remove discrimination under the law, not enforce it. He may be a teacher of Torah, but he is yet to become a teacher of humanity.
Postscript – September 7 2017
Rabbi Daniel Rabin has issued a personal apology on Facebook for the RCV statement:
I accept this apology and call for the RCV to withdraw their statement and issue a similar apology for the hurt and insensitivity of their actions.
The corollary to the argument Michael Kellahan presents (Why marriage should be between a man and a woman; SMH Aug 10 2017) is that it is ok to believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, because at one stage that is what people thought.
Just because a view was once historically popular does not mean it will always be fit-for-purpose.
On marriage equality, Penny Wong has reflected on her 2010 views and has modified them to suit the contemporary political and social climate.
It would bode people like Michael Kellahan well to adopt a similar line of thinking, because while it is ok to believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, doing so is going to make you look out of touch with the world around you.
We are alarmed by the news that Mark Allaby has been pressured to stand down from the board of another faith-based institution because of the perception that such board positions are not compatible with employment with companies which have publicly expressed support for changing the definition of marriage.
Contrary to what is expressed by some activists, we do not consider that your company’s expressed commitment to diversity is undermined by allowing all employees, including senior executives, the ability to hold, express and act on their beliefs in relation to marriage.
Two weeks earlier I posted this tweet:
In this tweet (and others) I raised concern about Mark Allaby working for IBM, a pro-LGBTIQ Pride in Diversity member organisation, whilst being a Director on the board of a charity holding a strong anti-LGBTIQ stance.
It’s unclear on what sound basis Damian Wyld brought the issue of marriage into this conversation. My tweets simply do not mention or allude to marriage.
What my tweets do is raise questions around how a senior employee of a leading pro-LGBTIQ corporation can, with any level of personal integrity, support their employer’s pro-LGBTIQ Diversity Statement, whilst also being on the board of a charitable organisation whose framework is based on a version of Christianity that is fundamentally opposed to LGBTIQ inclusion and equality.
If there is any doubt of the latter, the Lachlan Macquarie Institute is run by the Australian Christian Lobby, an organisation that comprehensively dedicates significant resources to denying dignity and full societal inclusion to same-sex attracted, intersex, and gender diverse Australians.
On the issue of marriage, to date IBM have never issued a public statement declaring support for marriage equality. IBM’s logo did appear on the Australian Marriage Equality list of declared corporate supporters sometime between February 19 and March 20 this year. However AME have told me that on the grounds of privacy they will not provide evidence of any correspondence authorising their use of IBM’s logo. In the absence of any public statement from IBM or AME, it can only be concluded that IBM have privately declared support for marriage equality.
I can confidently state that during my employment at IBM, from October 2005 to February 2015, IBM had explicitly and variously declined to go as far as declaring support for marriage equality. This was despite IBM being a solid supporter of LGBTIQ visibility and inclusion in the workplace, and being a founding member of Pride in Diversity. Since February 2015 IBM has not issued a public statement in support of marriage equality.
On March 16 The Daily Telegraph’s Miranda Devine reported IBM’s Managing Director Kerry Purcell co-signed a letter, in his personal capacity, declaring support for marriage equality. However it’s quite a leap to claim that IBM’s corporate entity declared support for marriage equality simply because their Managing Director declared personal support for it.
So where is Damian Wyld’s evidence to substantiate his claim that IBM “have publicly expressed support for changing the definition of marriage”?
And where is Damian Wyld’s evidence to substantiate his claim that “Mark Allaby has been pressured to stand down from the board of another faith-based institution”.
Further, where is Damian Wyld’s evidence of who pressured Mark Allaby to stand down from the board of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute?
I have certainly never contacted Mark Allaby, and IBM has refused to comment on the topic.
In conclusion, Damian Wyld has distorted my tweets, falsely claimed IBM have made a public statement of support for marriage equality, and claimed, without evidence, that pressure was put on Mark Allaby to stand down from the board of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, without stating by whom.
It seems that Marriage Alliance CEO Damien Wyld is being deceitful in his open letter. He has provided no evidence of his claims and it would appear he has distorted and fabricated the truth.
It’s a bit rich for religious conservatives to be denouncing gay activists for urging boycotts of companies that don’t support marriage equality. They do the exact thing in reverse. The religious right and other anti-LGBTI groups held an international conference in South Africa last December, largely to oppose the international spread of marriage equality.
All delegates, including Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby and David van Gend from Australian Marriage Forum, signed a pledge to what is now called the Cape Town Declaration. Apart from pledging to oppose same-sex marriage, the Declaration commits its signatories, where possible, “to refuse to deal with corporations” that deny their “religious truths”.
Brian Greig, Bayswater, WA
ABC The Drum have issued an apology and correction in response to this segment that they ran on my activism on March 28 2017:
Full episode here.
Official ABC correction:
The Drum: On 28 March 2017, during a panel discussion on same-sex marriage activism questioning the connections between companies supporting same-sex marriage and organizations opposing it, the program included graphics of three ‘tweets’ from Michael Barnett. These questioned the decision by companies and a university, to employ people who hold anti-LGBTI views. The Drum incorrectly drew a connection between the marriage equality debate, and Mr Barnett’s reference to corporate commitments to Pride and Diversity – a national employer support program which campaigns for LGBTI inclusion.
Thank you ABC. Apology accepted.
On Wednesday 22 March 2017 ABC Radio National’s Religion and Ethics Report aired “The culture war of marriage equality in Australia”.
I thought this interview was both intellectually dishonest and biased.
The interview presented only one side of the story around my raising awareness of a perceived conflict with Lachlan Macquarie Institute Board member and former Australian Christian Lobby board member Mark Allaby, and his current employment at IBM Australia.
Andrew West incorrectly framed the conversation in terms of “same-sex marriage” within the opening four seconds of the story and at 7:56 left unchallenged the insinuation by Prof Benson that my activism was a “witch-hunt” targeting Mark Allaby.
In the intellectual void of Prof Benson’s argument, he makes a range of assumptions, factual errors and omissions. First off he claims this is about marriage equality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Not once have I mentioned or implied the words “marriage equality” in relation to Mark Allaby’s association with IBM. For me, this particular issue is definitely not about marriage equality.
To this day IBM has no on-the-record corporate position on marriage equality, despite their Managing Director Kerry Purcell recently declaring his personal support for it, first reported on March 16, and despite a few media articles circa 2013-15 incorrectly stating so. As of February 20 IBM’s logo was absent from the Australian Marriage Equality list of corporate supporters, yet it appeared subsequently, and surprisingly without fanfare, sometime around the publication of the CEO letter, but before March 21. As yet there has been no public announcement from IBM or AME substantiating its appearance.
As such, it is not possible for Prof Benson or Andrew West to actually know what IBM’s public corporate position on marriage equality is given it has not yet been communicated officially.
Given that Prof Benson has not actually spoken to me, he could not know my motivation for bringing to public attention Mark Allaby’s simultaneous connection with IBM and the Lachlan Macquarie Institute.
If he had asked me, without jumping to conclusion, I would have told him that for me, this is only about holding IBM to account as a founding member of Pride in Diversity. I simply sought to question IBM’s rationale for employing to a senior leadership role a person whose personal stance appears to be in direct conflict with IBM’s stated goals as an employer of choice for LGBTIQ people.
How can IBM, in all sincerity, guarantee their same-sex attracted, gender diverse, and intersex employees an unbiased, safe, discrimination-free and fully participative environment in the workplace under the leadership of someone like Mark Allaby? The Lachlan Macquarie Institute trains future leaders in Christian values that are intolerant of legal equality for LGBTIQ people. The Australian Christian Lobby actively deploys campaigns and lobbies politicians around issues that include degrading the legal rights and equality of LGBTIQ people. Knowing that such a senior employee currently or previously had significant leadership influence with these sorts of organisations would leave any reasonable person hesitant to openly broach such important topics with them, for fear of not being afforded unconditional acceptance, dignity and respect.
Prof Benson gets it wrong in assuming this specific issue for me is about marriage equality. The ACL and those aligned with the organisation are undeniably on the record for targeting every initiative that furthers the removal of discrimination against LGBTIQ people. Examples of relevant ACL campaigns include Safe Schools, same-sex parenting, same-sex adoption, safety for transgender and intersex people, safe-sex awareness, removal of gay-panic laws, religious workplace and faith-based school protections, and equal relationship recognition (including and most notably marriage equality).
Given that I have not mentioned this is about marriage equality, it seems Prof Benson is driving an agenda in making it appear to be about such. What this is actually about for me is the guaranteed dignity, inclusion and respect of LGBTIQ people and our families, wherever in society, and in whatever form it takes.
Prof Benson alleged that the key activist, namely me, was embarking on a witch-hunt against Mark Allaby. It is unclear to me how he came to this understanding given the way events unfolded.
Lyle Shelton excoriated me in the ACL’s widely publicised March 14 blog. The first tweet I sent on this topic was on March 17. If Prof Benson had researched this issue, he would have known that Lyle Shelton and the ACL went after me three days before I was even aware of Mark Allaby’s employment at IBM.
Lyle Shelton’s blog implied Mark Allaby was forced to step down from the board of the Australian Christian Lobby in March 2016 because of me. As there is no public statement from either Mark Allaby or PwC on this matter, the reason for him stepping down is entirely speculative.
Lyle Shelton has a significant negative influence in the public sphere. He is frequently in the mainstream media, with ready access to radio, television, newsprint and online outlets. His decision to name me personally, an individual activist without the level of access to mainstream media he enjoys, demonstrates an apparently disturbing level of bullying and harassment.
If there is a witch-hunt going on, it is one being spearheaded by Lyle Shelton, and not me. I had no intention or motivation to review Mark Allaby’s circumstances until Lyle Shelton chose to bring both Mark Allaby’s and my name into public conversation on March 14.
In fact, it is a testament to my integrity as a human rights campaigner and advocate for equality that I did follow-up with IBM on Mark Allaby’s circumstances. It would be remiss of me to turn my back on any additional perceived conflict. I would hate to be labelled by Lyle Shelton as being inconsistent.
So really, Prof Benson got it all wrong, and disappointingly Andrew West did not offer me a right of reply, or let Prof Benson’s apparent prejudice go unchallenged. In the future this ABC presenter should provide a more balanced perspective when interviewing guests with intolerant ideological perspectives on human rights and equality.