Rodney Croome . gay advocate

Election (Tas, 2010)

Mini think tanks

A South Australian Labor MP takes to the field Tasmania's Liberals are vacating.

Apologies for my absence. I’ve had some pressing deadlines to meet. I was also busy at the end of last week with LGBT community state election forums.

There were forums in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie.

All three major parties – Labor, Liberal and Greens – sent representatives.

Unfortunately, LGBT community attendance was down from the 2006 state election when forums were packed to the rafters (as this post from 2006 confirms).

I’m not sure why this was. The election outcome is less predictable now than it was four years ago so you would expect more interest, not less.

The unintended consequence of smaller forums was more personal conversations and, in some cases, more productive outcomes.

Those LGBT community members who did attend were able to press candidates on key issues, and educate them about what it’s actually like being LGB or T in Tasmania.

In turn, candidates felt freer to ask questions, to say what they really feel about key issues and to discuss ways to address the problems facing LGBT Tasmanians.

In at least three cases, candidates from across the parties were prompted by LGBT community voices to find common ground, not only on what needs to be done but how real change can be made.

In effect the smaller forums were mini think tanks on the future of LGBT inclusion in Tasmania.

Let’s hope the same focus on practical problem solving continues after the election.

*

All three Tasmanian parties have now responded to the Tas Gay and Lesbian Rights Group’s election survey.

The responses can be found on this website, www.movingforward.org.au.

But for those of you without the time to sift through pages of party promises, here’s the upshot.

Overall, the three parties have committed to:

- take action against homophobic prejudice and violence
- review outdated legislation
- better consult with the LGBT community

Highlights of their platforms are:

Labor
- to re-open the same-sex adoption debate with a parliamentary inquiry
Liberal
- examine options for dealing with transgender prison inmates
Greens
- $300,000 for school anti-homophobia programs

Key features of the parties' responses are:

Labor
- review of discriminatory adoption laws and consider improvements to Relationships Act
- ensure transgender and intersex people have improved anti-discrimination protections
- work with GLBTI community to identify options for reducing homophobic violence
- improved consultation with the GLBTI community through the Social inclusion Unit

Liberals
- commitment to including anti-GLBTI violence in statewide anti-violence strategy
- serious consideration given to improving the Relationships Act
- examine options for dealing with transgender prison inmates
- improved consultation with the GLBTI community at a departmental and ministerial level

Greens
- increased funding for anti-homophobia programs in schools
- commitment to improve Relationships and Anti-Discrimination Acts
- commitment to same-sex marriage and adoption
- improved liaison between government and GLBTI community through a policy unit and ministerial portfolio

The TGLRG has never rated the parties' records or promises in relation to each other. Such a rating is made difficult by the fact that different LGBT people ascribe different levels of significance to each issue on the survey. Also, a comparison between the parties would usually give the same result, so what's the point?

It makes more sense to note whether parties have moved forward from where they were at the last election. This election, all three parties have improved on their 2006 commitments, which is pleasing.

The other pleasing feature of this election is that all parties, including the Liberals, committed to not authorising election materials which foster hatred against LGBT people.

Readers of this site will recall that the Tasmanian Liberal Party was subject to anti-discrimination cases from Martine Delaney alleging it incited hatred during the 2006 state election by a) authorising election materials declaring same-sex marriage is socially destructive, and b) helping members of the Exclusive Brethren develop election materials declaring the rights of transgender people will ruin families and society.

Those cases seem to have been successful in showing the Liberal Party the error of its ways (although, you’ll forgive me if I wait till election day before I call this for sure).

*

In other state election news,

At the same time as the Tasmanian Liberals move away from kicking the homosexual can, a South Australia Labor MP moves in on the same turf.

Member for West Torrens, Tom Koutsantonis, has sent his constituents a letter highlighting the problem of men meeting for sex in a local park and what he’s doing to stop it.

What makes this moral-panic-mongering less than edifying is the way Mr Koutsantonis,

1. encourages constituents to dob in, not only park-users breaking the law but people driving around “suspiciously” or just sitting in their cars
2. does this by sending out forms for people to send back to the police
3. seems keen to tar all “homosexuals” with the same brush
4. heightens the sense of threat by using words like “vile” and warning constituents to “not approach these individuals or their vehicles”, and
5. can only think in terms of the kind of punitive responses we know just don’t work.

I haven’t been following the South Australian election (which is on the same day as Tasmanian, March 20th).

But I’ll take a punt and guess Mr K has a fundamentalist church in his electorate and/or is up against a Family First candidate.

That’s the only way I can explain such bizarre electioneering.

***

And in other news,

Lots of other things have happened in the last few days, but I don’t have time to write about them now.

Return tomorrow and Thursday for more…

[ comments? ]

Marriage equality (national)

Lets talk about everything else we’ve done

The next test for marriage equality will be in the ballot box.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill has been voted down by the major parties in the Senate.

S H-Y’s exemplary address aside, the debate was not very inspiring.

On behalf of the Coalition, Senator George Brandis, declared that marriage has only ever been between a man and a woman (except in Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Massachusetts, Iowa etc, informed listeners would have added in their puzzled minds).

In a way, the contribution of Labor’s Senator Nick Sherry was even more puzzling. As expected, he cited Labor’s record on recognising same-sex de facto couples in federal law and establishing civil partnership schemes in the states (more about this in a minute).

And that was it! He didn’t say one word about why Labor actually opposes marriage equality. It’s as if the issue at stake didn’t exist.

At best Sherry hinted at Labor’s stance with words like “practical” to describe what the Government has done for same-sex couples. The implication was that marriage equality is purely “symbolic” (which it isn’t, and which wouldn’t diminish its importance even if it was).

The great danger in Labor’s lets-talk-about-everything-else-we’ve-done approach to marriage equality is that everything else – defacto rights / state partnership schemes - will quickly be tainted as a distraction and a poor substitute, even though they are, in their own right, quite important.

Anyway, back to the issue.

Alex Greenwich from Australian Marriage Equality has already flagged where to now.

There will be a federal election some time later this year. Marriage equality will inevitably be an issue, no matter how much some people try to ignore it.

*

An interesting aspect of the debate was that it was earlier and shorter than expected. I understand this may have been because of a last-minute deal between the parties to allow a vote on the Bill. This is unfortunate because the whole point of debates on Bills that won’t succeed is the debate.

Another sidelight was the absence of out Labor Senator Penny Wong who, as the rep of the Attorney-General in the Senate should have been speaking instead of Nick Sherry, and the absence of out Labor Senator Louise Pratt who is on the public record as a supporter of marriage equality, but who may have felt it was best to leave well alone.

Yet another little feature was the Senate-floor dispute between Senator Brandis and relatively anti-gay National Party Senator, Ron Boswell. Apparently the former was none of the keenest about the latter speaking.

Also notable, was Senator Sherry’s repeated reference to the NSW relationships register announced two days ago.

Like others, I have been studying the NSW Government’s announcement for clues about what it intends to do.

What I noticed was an interesting pattern.

The NSW Government's description of what a relationship register is and how it works exactly mirror the Federal Government's views on these schemes, but has almost nothing to do with how they are seen, or how they actually work, in the other states.

For example, both the Federal and NSW Governments say a relationship register is for registering existing de facto relationships, but this is not what happens in the ACT, Tasmania or Victoria. Nor is it how these states see their schemes.

The NSW Government says that, on the advice of the Federal Government, it's legally difficult to recognise non-conjugal partners, yet these partners are recognised without any problems in Tasmania and Victoria.

Even on the positive side we can see the same pattern. The NSW Government says it will work toward mutual recognition, a high priority for the Federal Government, but unfortunately a low one for Tas, Vic and the ACT."

It's as if the Federal Government wrote the NSW Government's press statement for it.

Could this be an initiative direct from Capital Hill? If so, why would the Federal Government do this?

Is it because there’s a federal election soon and the Feds want to be able to say they have fulfilled their 2007 election commitment to a "nationally-consistent system of state-based relationship recognition"?

Is it because there was a marriage equality debate today and the Feds wanted to use the NSW announcement to distract from their failure to support marriage equality?

And if the NSW initiative is just ventriloquism, what does that say about the integrity and basic wherewithal of the NSW Government? (rhetorical question).

***

In other news,

Dan Meagher sums up the constitutional issues raised by same-sex marriage.

Dan Witthaus’s unprecedented Tour de Homophobie begins in his home town of Geelong.

A Queensland Catholic priest speaks out for equity in parenting.

Mardi Gras goers are warned to watch out for bashers.

And

Homophobes have answers for everything except what homosexuals should do.

Postscript: Click here for a full transcript of the Senate debate.

[ comments? ]

Relationship registries

Legislative snobbery

The NSW Government has proposed a lowest-common-denominator scheme for recognising relationships.

The NSW Government has announced that it will create a state relationship register.

This will bring the number of states and territories with such schemes to four after Tas, Vic and the ACT.

The move has been welcomed as a step forward by a range of advocacy groups, all of which have also re-inforced the point that registries are not a substitute for same-sex marriage.

The groups include the Australian Coalition for Equality, Australian Marriage Equality and, critically, the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.

Until recently the NSW GLRL opposed state-based recognition schemes in favour of a national scheme.

It’s pleasing to see they’ve changed their minds. A national scheme would be much harder to achieve than a state scheme. Because marriage is currently governed by federal legislation, a national scheme would also be more likely to be seen, wrongly, as a substitute for same-sex marriage. A state scheme is more obviously not a substitute.

That said, it’s probably no coincidence that this has occurred in a federal election year.

National Labor policy is to enact a system of state-based registries instead of granting equality in marriage for same-sex couples.

Without such a scheme in NSW, it would have been much harder for federal Labor MPs in inner-city seats to look their LGBT constituents in the eye and say the Rudd Government has delivered on its promise.

But we cannot speak of the Rudd Government, promises and same-sex relationships without there also being a nod to the religious right.

In this case it is the NSW Government’s insistence that a relationship registry is not a civil union scheme.

As I’ve noted many times before this distinction is absurd.

When we compare Australia’s “relationship registers” with “civil union” schemes in other places we find that the former often provide a broader range of legal entitlements (especially since their recognition in federal law last year) and have more formal ceremonial components.

Australia’s registries are more like civil union schemes than most civil union schemes.

In the Australian context, the distinction between civil unions and registries generally distinguishes between schemes that are supposed to create new legal relationships (like a marriage) and those that are supposed to recognise existing ones (like de facto unions).

In turn, this creation/recognition distinction was invented by the ACT Government to snootily distinguish its original civil union law from Tasmania’s scheme, and perpetuated by the Federal Government so it could offer up a quashed ACT scheme to the Australian Christian Lobby while leaving the Tasmanian scheme unmolested.

The only problem is that none of the schemes we have in Australia actually recognise existing de facto relationships. They all create new legal relationships.

This is illustrated in Tasmania by the fact that entering a Deed of Relationship bestows new legal rights and automatically nullifies partners’ wills. That’s not what happens when you simply recognise an existing de facto relationships.

Rarely has a legal myth been so widely accepted and so grievously wrong.

My fear is that the myth is so widely accepted that the proposed NSW scheme will require couples to prove they are in an existing relationship before they can register, a burden that was, at one stage, imposed on the ACT by the Federal Government, but which has never existed in Tasmania or Victoria.

Only when further details of the NSW scheme are released will we know if this is the case.

*

Beyond the politics of the NSW announcement lie the actual merits of relationship registries.

As the above groups all note, they provide a way for couples who don’t wish to marry to formalise their unions, guarantee their entitlements and obtain official recognition.

But within the supposedly “nationally-consistent” system that is developing to achieve this goal, there are very divergent approaches.

For example, Tasmania and the ACT have official ceremonies but Victoria doesn’t.

Tasmania and Victoria recognise non-conjugal companionate and familial relationships, but the ACT doesn’t.

So what approach is NSW taking?

Unfortunately, it is confirming my worst fears about the term “national consistency” by establishing a scheme that is the lowest common denominator of the three existing schemes.

It won’t have official ceremonies and it won’t recognise diverse relationships.

This is deeply disappointing. My hope for the establishment of these schemes across the federation was that they would build on and enhance the achievements of earlier schemes.

Sadly, it seems like the reverse is true.

The merits of recognising diverse relationships are obvious. Instead I’ll focus now on what is more often controversial about state schemes, ceremonies.

Since the Tasmanian Government allowed official ceremonies in November I’ve spoken to same-sex couples and their friends and family members who have participated in such ceremonies and been deeply moved by them.

I’ve encountered same-sex partners who are simply happy that the state allows them the option, even if they have not yet taken it up.

Just this evening, I spoke at a professional-development training session for Tasmanian marriage celebrants who want to know more about the local ceremonies some of them are already being called on to perform. It was the second in a series of such meetings around the state. The celebrants, most of whom are heterosexual, are not only happy that official ceremonies are now available for same-sex couples. They are proud that their island home, which was the last state to criminalise same-sex relationships, is one of the first to positively affirm these relationships.

If I ever doubted the importance of such ceremonies I don’t any more.

In regard to the origins of "ceremony-less" schemes, one of the reasons NSW and Victoria get away with not having official ceremonies is that relationship registries are supposedly based on “the Tasmanian model” and that model was without such ceremonies for several years.

Only, in recent weeks did I discover, through unrelated research, why this was, and why the (now former) ceremony-less “Tasmanian model” is inappropriate for other states.

The Tasmanian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) is alone among Australian state and territory Registries in not having staff members perform on-site marriages.

Put another way, the Tasmanian BDM doesn’t do ANY ceremonies.

This is why there weren’t official ceremonies when the relationship registry was established, why it took quite a while for the officials at the Tasmanian BDM to come to grips with a ceremonial procedure for Deeds of Relationship, and why the (former) “Tasmanian model” is inappropriate for all the other states and territories where marriage ceremonies are regularly performed at the local BDM by BDM employees.

In short, Victoria and NSW have no excuses.

**

The one positive detail of the NSW proposal is that Macquarie Street is committed to moving towards mutual recognition between the states.

Again, because the Tasmanian scheme was established before equivalent schemes in other states or, indeed, other nations like New Zealand and the UK, there is no provision for the recognition of other schemes.

And because Tasmania was “the model”, the other schemes don’t recognise each other either.

This is immensely frustrating for couples who move from one state to another and have to re-register.

I’m hopeful that Tasmania will move towards the recognition of other schemes after the state election on March 20th.

Labor and the Greens have a commitment to the necessary legislative reform. The Liberals have given the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group an election pledge to review the current legal situation and seriously consider reform.

The only major obstacle to mutual recognition within Australia is, oddly, the ACT.

In response to a question in the ACT Legislative Assembly on October 14th last year about whether regulations had been made under section 15 of the ACT Civil Partnership Act to recognise interstate schemes, the ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said this…

"Yesterday, in question time, Ms Bresnan asked me a question about whether or not regulations have been made under section 15 of the Civil Partnerships Act 2008 and, if they had been, why that information had not been made available to the public. In my answer yesterday, I indicated that I believed regulations had been made. That is incorrect. Regulations have not been made. I apologise for that error, and I provide this advice in relation to why regulations have not been made. No regulations have been made under section 15 of the act. The Tasmanian Relationships Act has been regarded as a mere registration act rather than legislation that truly recognises same-sex partnerships. Victoria's relationships legislation is in a similar position. The legislation in both of those states focuses on the legal rights, particularly property rights, of couples rather than on the recognition of the existence of same-sex relationships, and consequently the legal entitlements of the parties to that relationship."

Some of this is simply wrong. The “legal entitlements” for partners in formalised unions in Tasmania and Victoria and almost identical to those in the ACT.

But some of what Corbell said is not just wrong, it is offensive.

“The Tasmanian Relationships Act has been regarded as a mere registration act rather than legislation that truly recognises same-sex partnerships.”

As I explained above, the ACT Government has always looked down its nose at the Tasmanian scheme, inventing legal fictions about “registering existing relationships” to make its scheme look better.

But never before has it been so dismissive.

It’s as if, to restore some of its dented pride after the Feds bullied it into accepting a scheme that was not what it wanted, the ACT Government has to declare “well, at least we’re still better than Tasmania”.

What we are seeing here is legislative snobbery of the most foolish kind.

Foreign governments like those in the UK regard the Tasmanian and Victorian schemes as equivalent to their civil union schemes and automatically recognise formalised partnerships from these states. How absurd for the ACT to feel it is above the kind of mutual recognition foreign countries are willing to give.

It is even more absurd given how narrow and discriminatory the ACT scheme is in some key areas. In Australian terms, it has the narrowest definition of what relationships can be recognised and, even more narrowly, excludes opposite-sex couples from official ceremonies. If we allowed ourselves to descend to the level of the ACT Government we could label the ACT scheme a "mere" law for same-sex ceremonies.

Sadly, the people who will pay the price for the ACT Government’s silly, muddle-headed, misleading, conceited obstinancy are ordinary same-sex couples in formalised relationships who move to Canberra from other states, the very couples the Stanhope Government says it wants to “truly recognise”.

We can only hope the ACT is prompted to reconsider its position by the establishment of a relationship register in the state that surrounds it.

***

In other news,

The Isle of Man also considers civil partnerships.

[ comments? ]

Parenting

'Under the counter'

Despite recent reforms in Queensland, surrogacy laws are still a mess.

Are some Australians breaking the law by having children through surrogacy overseas?

Is the Australian Government helping them?

Prominent Queensland lawyer and blogger, Stephen Page, thinks the answer to both questions is “yes”.

In his latest webpost, Stephen explains that overseas commercial surrogacy is illegal for couples in Queensland and the ACT. I understand that some people in WA fear it may also be illegal in that state.

This means there are many couples – most of whom are heterosexual, some of whom are gay men - who face the risk of prosecution.

No less troubling is the fact, highlighted by Stephen, that the Australian missions in the two countries where commercial surrogacy for Australians is most common – the US and India - actually provide guidelines to make it easier for Australians to enter into these arrangements. No warning is given about the above-mentioned state laws.

The problem has come to light in the wake of the decriminalisation of local, altruistic surrogacy in Queensland.

It seems the criminal sanctions against overseas commercial arrangements were left in place.

The ACT?...I assume similar sanctions were left or put in place as a kind of quid pro quo when the ACT recognised local altruistic surrogacy arrangements, although I can’t be sure of this.

Anyway, this staggering inconsistency between the states, an inconsistency which leaves many parents open to prosecution, can’t go on.

Either overseas surrogacy is generally criminalised or generally decriminalised.

The main argument against decriminalising overseas commercial surrogacy is that the practice is exploitative of women in developing countries (and the US).

But given how many families have already been, and will continue to be, formed, through overseas surrogacy, criminalising the practice is impractical.

Criminalisation is also not in the best interests of the children concerned.

One option is for Australia to recognise overseas commercial surrogacy in countries where there are certain standards of remuneration and health care for the women concerned.

Of course, there's always the danger that some decision-makers may decide to go down another path, decriminalising overseas commercial surrogacy for different-sex couples and not their same-sex counterparts.

Either way, given Tony Abbott’s success in dragging debate on sex and fertility even further to the right, it’s hard to see how any progress will be made at a national level before this year’s election.

*

On another surrogacy issue closer to home, Stephen Page has defended his claim that Tasmania criminalises altruistic surrogacy, something I recently said was wrong.

Stephen’s interpretation of the relevant Tasmanian law is that it framed widely enough to criminalise all surrogacy

This is in contrast to the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee on Surrogacy which found that altruistic surrogacy, while not recognised, is not illegal.

It was the Select Committee on which I based my view. But Stephen’s argument is a compelling one. Moreover, if he is right, the recent reform in Queensland means Tasmania is now the only state which criminalises altruistic surrogacy.

I’ll follow it up asap.

***

In other news,

A US study that looked at overseas militaries including Australia’s, finds that rapid integration of gay and lesbian service-personnel poses no threat.

In response to criticism of his recent comments about camp figure-skater, Johnny Weir, Eddie McGuire has said,

"I live by equality and I'll stand up and fight for anybody's right to be treated equally." (MX, Melbourne, 19.2.10)

Excellent. I’ll can’t wait to see Eddie sign on as a supporter of marriage equality.

And

Criticism of the Sydney Mardi Gras continues with revelations that actors "paid to be gay" have appeared in the parade while LGBT people with a legitimate cause are excluded.

You’ll recall my recent gripe about Mardi Gras banning a Tasmanian G&L Visitors Guide I wrote from Fair Day because of an exclusive contract signed with Events NSW (BTW the ban was confirmed in a public statement from Events NSW, after my recent post on this issue).

It’s ridiculous that a community-focused publication should be censored because of a commercial contract.

It is particularly ironic that a publication illustrating how much Tasmania has changed since the days when LGBT publications were banned should itself be banned at an LGBT event.

But what really highlights the silliness of all this is what actually happened at Fair Day.

Obviously, most Fair Day goers did not see the Guide, thanks to the ban. But those who had already booked trips to Tassie and specifically asked for general information about Tasmania from particular people on particular stalls were slipped one “under the counter”.

What a sorry situation.

[ comments? ]

Education

High expectations

Young people often lead the way.

Yesterday evening I had the privilege to speak at the launch of one of the most important books on challenging homophobia ever written.

The book is “Beyond ‘That’s So Gay’” by Daniel Witthaus. Dan is Australia’s most innovative and effective challenging homophobia trainer and his challenging homophobia kit, Pride and Prejudice is used around the nation.

But what’s important about the book, as I said in my address, is that it tackles the fears, myths and lack of information that hold school communities back from confronting homophobia.

I’ve never read another book that does this so well.

You can buy the book from from the publisher, Hawker Brownlow (although you should read Dan’s instructions about buying the book before you do).

Meanwhile, next week Daniel begins his national challenging homophobia tour.

His aim to travel around the continent visiting regional, rural and remote communities to deliver challenging homophobia training and check out the situation for LGBT people, especially young people.

The tour builds on the work Yours Truly and others did several years ago with the Human Rights Commission’s Outlink Network.

The tour begins on Thursday in the city of Dan’s birth, and the birthplace of his vocation, Geelong.

*

Writing my address for yesterday’s launch focused my attention on the importance of expectations in legal and social change.

My expectations of what could be achieved in schools by way of challenging homophobia was very low until I met Daniel.

The problem was I didn’t even realise how low they were.

He opened my eyes to how much more could be achieved if we expect more.

I am reminded of Michael Cain’s gay blood donation challenge.

He expected to be treated equitably by the Red Cross and was so shaken by its failure to do this he set out to challenge its outdated policies.

When Michael was turned away from blood donation he was 22, the same as Daniel when he discovered how poorly homophobia is challenged in schools (if it is challenged at all).

This is not a coincidence. It often takes young LGBT people, brought up with higher expectations of how society will treat them than the generations before, who initiate the actions that lead to change.

The next time you notice how many young people lead the campaign for marriage or parenting equality and wonder to yourself, “why do people so young want to get married and have kids?”, consider it may be because it is often the young who show their elders the path to equity and justice.

***

In other news,

The Greens have called for a conscience vote on marriage equality ahead of debate on the issue in the Senate next week.

Is the Rudd Government distancing itself for any issues it fears Tony Abbott could beat up on?

And

Here are some gay winter Olympians.

[ comments? ]

Marriage equality (national)

Kiss-ins

The least likely places, aren't.

Community Action Against Homophobia has launched the year of action on same-sex marriage with a Valentine’s Day kiss-in in Sydney.

The issue being lifelong commitment, I hope they didn’t swap kissing partners.

At least the Sydney event didn’t provoke the kind of opposition aimed at a Valentine's Day Parisian kiss-in.

For some people that seems counter-intuitive, hostility to kissing in the City of Love?

But just as the responses of individuals to homosexuality can be surprising, so can the responses of cities.

As part of the national year of action launch, hundreds of people marched through Ballarat to protest for marriage equality.

Did I say “surprising”? Scrub that. There’s nothing surprising about high levels of support for marriage equality among LGBT people and their supporters in regional and rural Australia.

After all, this is where connection to the institution is likely to be strongest, and where desire for the inclusion and belonging marriage brings is likely to be most keenly felt.

*

In other regional and rural news,

Senior journalist with the Sunshine Coast Daily, Rebecca Marshall, follows up last week's Qld parenting debate by coming out to her readers as the loving co-mum of a two year old child.

In other same-sex parenting news,

Do same-sex attracted men exist to give their nieces and nephews a survival advantage? The many less-than-avuncular gay men I know would disagree.

And in other news altogether,

I'm in Melbourne for a week hanging out with the boyf who is over here for work.

Actually, it's not Melbourne, it's Ringwood, which, I've discovered, is half way to New Zealand.

But it is the first spousal entitlement I've ever received so instead of complaining I'll celebrate St V's Day with a company-subsidised kiss of my own.

[ comments? ]

Australian LGBT community

(un)Fair Day

The Mardi Gras has some questions to answer.

Animal Liberation NSW has been excluded from the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade after many years of participation.

Emphasising their queerness with the new contingent name, “Sydney Queers for Animal Rights”, wasn’t enough to reverse the decision. Pointing out the many non-gay corporations that participate also didn’t move the MG organisers.

ALNSW officials are “gob-smacked” and “disappointed”.

I know how they feel.

For the first time in over a decade, Tourism Tasmania (along with every other tourism agency from outside NSW) has been refused a stall at Mardi Gras Fair Day.

Initially the Tasmanian tourism operators who usually share TT’s stall were also banned.

They have now made alternative arrangements. But they still have to abide by a ban on all materials which promote Tasmania as a whole.

The reason? MG has signed a contract with Events NSW which bans ENSW’s competitors from MG events.

The decision to ban Tourism Tasmania and all Tasmanian tourism materials from Fair Day raises several questions I’ll address in turn.

1. How is Tourism Tasmania a direct competitor with Events NSW?

Are there Tassie-style bushwalks and heritage tours on Events NSW calender? No.

Do Sydney-siders travel to Tasmania for the kind of film festivals and Mahler concerts Events NSW is plugging? No.

The issue here isn’t competing holiday experiences. It’s competition for disposable income. By that standard almost every business, charity and community group at Fair Day competes with Events NSW and should be banned.

2. Even if Tourism Tasmania and the other tourism bodies excluded from Fair Day compete directly with Events NSW, why ban them?

From food and wine festivals through to garden shows, travel and tourism bodies from around the nation are encouraged to attend and spruik their products regardless of which state the event is held in.

Why do Events NSW and the Sydney Mardi Gras (which is supposed to stand for non-discrimination) defy this co-operative ethos and insist only agencies from NSW can attend Mardi Gras events?

3. Why has Tourism Tasmania been excluded now, after so many years of hassle-free participation, and why is it still welcome at LGBT community events in other capital cities?

To phrase this question another way, why does the Mardi Gras Association, alone among Australia’s LGBT festival organisers, need to sign exclusivity contracts with big-name sponsors stay afloat financially?

Is this the price the LGBT community has to pay for an oversized festival that believes its own spin about being “the biggest and the best” and is too proud to scale itself back to what its city can realistically sustain?

But by far the most important question for me is this.

4. Why can’t the Mardi Gras Association see that the visibility of Tasmanian tourism at Fair Day is as much about community as it is about pink dollars?

Tourism Tasmania initially set up stalls at LGBT pride events on the continent in the late 90s.

After the bitter gay law reform of the 1990s Tasmania had a terrible image problem that was driving LGBT tourists away.

TT realised it had show commitment to the LGBT community to overcome the state’s bad reputation.

It did this by running training sessions for tourist operators, supporting LGBT community events, issuing promotional material with real couples talking about the real experiences, and incorporating same-sex couples into mainstream advertising.

All of this was driven by an LGBT consultative group made up of operators and community reps.

One of its most important initiatives was to invite community reps, like yours truly, to help staff its Fair Day stall.

I participated because this kind of face-to-face contact with Fair Day goers helped break down stereotypes about Tasmania, in exactly he same way our education programs in Tasmania had broken down stereotypes about LGBT people.

When myths about Tasmania were challenged by the presence at Fair Day of community reps under the auspices of a State Government agency the beneficiaries were not only Tasmanian tourist operators and the state economy.

LGBT Tasmanians benefited as well by being seen as active agents in shaping their own destiny, not powerless victims of homophobia.

In short, Tourism Tasmania has done as much as any government agency could to rehabilitate Tasmania, and give LGBT Tasmanians a new, empowered profile on the mainland.

Yet, Mardi Gras blithely ignores this contribution to our community, and judges TT’s participation in Fair Day purely in dollar terms.

At this stage I should admit I also have a personal stake in this little tragedy.

It’s not about my participation in the TT Fair Day stall. I gave that up to local LGBT tourism operators a few years ago.

It’s about the Gay and Lesbian Visitor’s Guide I wrote for Tourism Tasmania several years ago and which has just gone into its second edition.

I wrote that guide to reflect the community values I’ve already mentioned.

My objective was not just to spruik Tasmania as a travel destination.

It was also, and more importantly, to provide LGBT visitors (and straight visitors and LGBT locals) with greater insight into Tasmania generally, and into its rich LGBT history, culture and community in particular.

If I say so myself, few G&L visitor guides provide as much detailed information about gay life in a particular place. It’s as much about being gay in Tasmania and is it about visiting the place. This may be why it is one of the most popular guides Tourism Tasmania has ever produced.

But, like every other publication associated with Tourism Tasmania, the distribution of that visitors’ guide at Fair Day is prohibited.

In the 1980s and 90s I fought against lots of anti-LGBT bans in Tasmania – the ban on the gay rights stall at Salamanca Market, the ban on queer film festivals, the ban on anti-homophobia materials in schools, the ban on gay safe-sex education, the ban on LGBT contingent in the Hobart Xmas Pageant, the ban on cross-dressing after dark, even a proposed ban on coming out, not to mention the overarching ban on homosexuality.

I never expected in my wildest dreams to have a publication I wrote about the success we had in overcoming all that, and the joy many of us feel about being gay and Tasmanian, banned from a Mardi Gras Fair Day.

Sure the motive behind the Tasmanian bans was hate, while the Sydney ban is about money.

But the effect is the same: censorship of an important part of our community.

The Mardi Gras Association must,

- review the necessity for, and application of, exclusivity clauses in its sponsorship policy
- allow Tourism Tasmania and other travel bodies to freely participate in its events
- lift all bans on publications with community value

NOW!

*

In other Mardi-Gras-puts-corporate-interests-ahead-of-community news, former editor of SX, Peter Hackney highlights the gay media’s reluctance to deal with the issue of the corporatisation of Mardi Gras.

Postscript: I understand from a journalist that a representative of Mardi Gras has responded to the Tourism Tasmania ban by claiming that the Tas G&L Visitors' Guide can be distributed from the national G&L Travel Association (GALTA) stall at Fair Day, and that "gay pride" is its core business, not tourism.

FTR an email sent by Mardi Gras to Tourism Tasmania last week made it quite clear that no materials branded with the Tourism Tasmania logo can be distributed at Fair Day. This includes the Guide. If there is now an exception to the rule, a reason should be provided. As for gay pride, as mentioned above, the G&L Visitors' Guide is as much about the proud gay and lesbian history and culture of Tasmania as it is about travel.

[ comments? ]

Queensland

Moral codes

Queensland witnesses a victory of love over hate.

The Queensland Parliament has finished its long debate on decriminalising surrogacy, which was really a debate on same-sex parenting.

The result is a resounding victory for equality.

In the end, only two government MPs crossed the floor, making the final vote 45 in favour of equality and 36 against. Anti-gay amendments were also defeated 46 to 35.

This result is important for several reasons.

It provides legal certainty and peace-of-mind for many families headed by same-sex couples.

It sends a strong message to other states that have yet to properly tackle surrogacy about the need to regulate the practice and ensure it is available on a non-discriminatory basis.

It sends a particularly pointed message to South Australia about it’s failure to legally-recognise same-sex parents: you’re the last state, again, so get a move on

It also sends out the message that no matter how sophisticated and loud anti-gay lobbyists are when it comes to spreading their hateful messages, the real-life experiences of families directly affected by discrimination is much more compelling.

Which brings me to the final point.

Advocates in Queensland deserve praise for successfully defeating hate with love.

For months they have been lobbying and educating MPs and their fellow citizens through policy seminars, meet-the-families forums, letter-writing campaigns, radio ads, you name it.

Their efforts set a high standard for community-based human rights campaigning. The credit they deserve is far more than they will seek and far less than they will receive.

*

In other Queensland reform news,

Anti-gay groups think community outrage will oust Labor from office in exactly the way they predicted, but it didn't, after the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Queensland 20 years ago.

And

Pro-gay groups sound a more reasonable note.

***

In other news altogether,

Theo Hobson is right that the key reason for religious divisions over homosexuality is not sex-phobia but homophobia. But, I’m not sure about his idea that Christians can or should abandon moral codes because some find it hard to reconcile homosexuality with the Bible. Maybe that works if all you do is stare at the sky eagerly anticipating Jesus’ return, like the early Christians and the early Protestants Hobson cites. But the reason most religions have moral codes is because their adherents live in this world, here, now and for the foreseeable future. The only sustainable answer to the question of homosexuality and morality is a moral code that upholds human dignity regardless of sexual orientation.

Of course, some people may take a little longer to convince than others.

[ comments? ]

Queensland

Fault line

The Queensland surrogacy debate holds important lessons for all supporters of equality.

The Queensland debate on decriminalising and regulating altruistic surrogacy, and legally-recognising non-biological parents, began yesterday, and is still going on, and on, and on, and on.

Queensland is the only state which criminalises altruistic surrogacy, and only one of two states (together with SA) which fails to provide legal recognition for partners of women who have children through fertility treatment.

For a run-down of the law reforms being proposed check out Stephen Page’s G&L Law Blog (I note SP’s state-by-state summary of surrogacy laws says altruistic surrogacy is banned in Tasmania. This isn’t strictly correct. For a tick-box chart of the current laws state by state, scroll down to page 12 of this parliamentary report on the issue).

No-one in the Qld Parliament seems to object to surrogacy being decriminalised. But the Liberal National Party Opposition is livid about allowing same-sex couples to be parents.

It has put up its own exclude-the-gays bill, and has dragged out the debate for as long as possible to a) hog the spotlight and b) persuade as many government MPs as possible to support discrimination.

You see, the Qld Government has allowed its members a conscience vote on the issue, something which is highly irregular in an Australian context and should never have been allowed.

What makes this conscience vote particularly objectionable is that it’s not really about surrogacy. As I’ve noted it seems MPs generally support this.

Like the LNP bill, the ALP conscience vote is actually about same-sex parenting, making the precedent it sets even more troubling.

Inevitably, during such a long polarising debate, some of the contributions have been excellent and some offensive.

Not content with comparing the children of same-sex couples to pets, Opposition MP Ray Hopper said,

"Just look at the first five years of a child's life when you've got two mothers. How do you take them to a public toilet when you go on a so-called family outing? They'll have to go to the ladies' toilet won't they? You're not going to let a little boy go in the male toilet - you haven't even thought of it."

Ever heard of a parenting room Mr Hopper? (for a local Qld community response to the hate click here).

It’s easy to make fun of this kind of gumph and to dismiss it with phrases like “typical Queensland”.

I never thought I’d say this, but watching the debate last night on the internet I felt glad I live in Tasmania where same-sex parenting seems to be no longer an issue, even for conservatives.

But these kinds of responses are simplistic.

There are two very important aspects of the Queensland debate that all supporters of equality must heed.

The first is the distinction drawn by some more thoughtful Opposition members between recognising same-sex co-mothers which they don’t have a huge problem with, and allowing surrogacy for same-sex couples which they vehemently oppose.

While they don’t use these terms, the distinction they are making is between legally-recognising and protecting families that already exist, and legally allowing new families to be created.

As I noted in an essay published in 2008, this pre-existence/creation dichotomy runs like a fault line through all debates on same-sex parenting and relationship law reform in Australia.

The Queensland surrogacy debate is the point on that fault line where there has been a quake.

The other important aspect of the Qld debate is the power of the Australian Christian Lobby to mobilise support.

Because a conscience vote means a tight result, and because of the hot-button “creating families” undercurrent, the ACL has thrown huge resources behind advocacy, letter-writing and lobbying, galvanising its support-base through its Make a Stand website.

Thus far, the result has been a high-profile for, and legitimisation of, the ACL's stock anti-gay rhetoric and research through the parliamentary debate and into the media (especially the "children-as-pets" message).

Of course, whether the ACL’s efforts will be enough to defeat the State Government’s legislation remains to be seen.

What we can be sure about is that the Qld debate has shown how adept the ACL is at getting its messages into the mainstream quickly and efficiently.

***

In other news,

Canada has the Olympic movement's first official LGBT club house for athletes and supporters, complete with a classically-inspired naked statue of an ice-hockey player.

Could there be a sport less appropriate for nudity than ice hockey? If you can think of one, let me know.

[ comments? ]

Tasmanian LGBT rights

'Important for individuals and their freedom'

Sue Napier can be proud of her contribution to a more inclusive Tasmania.

Tasmanian state Liberal MP, Sue Napier, today announced she will retire from Parliament. The breast cancer she thought she had successfully fought off has returned.

Since she entered Parliament in 1992 Napier has played a crucial role in transforming not only the Tasmanian Liberal Party but the whole state when it comes to laws and attitudes on homosexuality.

In an interview on ABC radio this morning, Napier recalled how passionate she was about decriminalising homosexuality when she first entered Parliament.

The late 80s and early 90s were a terrible time for Tasmania. The state was riven by deep divisions over gay law reform. There was an eruption of raw, howling homo-hate of the kind not seen in Australia before.

As President of the state Upper House, Napier’s father, Harry Braid, not only oversaw the angry rejection of gay law reform in that chamber in 1990, but was invited to chair the first anti-gay rally in Ulverstone in 1989.

Braid was a strong opponent of gay law reform, but I’ll never forget the look of bewilderment on his face as the Ulverstone crowd he was meant to manage descended into hateful homophobic chants. His expression said simply “what have we done?”

Having seen all this, Sue Napier knew exactly what needed to be done. Hate was wrecking Tasmania and it had to be stopped.

After being elected to Parliament, Napier set about convincing a Party that had, until then, led the attack against LGBT people, to reverse its position.

It wasn’t easy. Many of her Liberal colleagues were at best bemused by her stance. As she said today,

"A lot of people said 'why are you concentrating on that (gay law reform)' and I said 'because it's important - it's important for individuals and their freedom'".

But four years later, with the help of embarrassing interventions from the UN, the Federal Government and the High Court, moderates like Napier finally succeeded. In 1996 the Liberal Party allowed a conscience vote on gay law reform.

Thanks in part to that decision, homosexuality was finally decriminalised in May 1997. In turn, Napier’s dream of a state Anti-discrimination Act was realised two years later and the recognition of same-sex relationships four years after that.

The last time I saw Sue Napier was in Parliament House late last year, the same day it was announced the State Government would allow official ceremonies for same-sex couples.

“It’s wonderful news”, she said beaming. “We’ve come so far.”

Indeed we have, no small thanks to people like her, people who quietly change hearts and minds in whatever way they can, people who work against the odds to create change where it seems most unlikely, people galvanised by the mistakes of those who came before to bequeath a better world to those who come after, people of intelligence and integrity.

Join me in hoping Sue Napier a rapid and full recovery.

***

In other news, Adrian Phoon believes that one of the best arguments for removing the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning openly gay service personnel is the Australian Defence Force.

Money quote,

In 2010, open homosexuality is a non-issue in several militaries around the world, including those of American allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, and Israel. All have managed to function without reporting any of the problems anticipated by the likes of (John) McCain and (Oliver) North.

The Australian Defence Force would seem a model employer of gay, lesbian, and bisexual personnel. In 1992, a year before the US implemented Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Australian Defence Force lifted its ban on homosexuality. Stuart O'Brien, Chief Petty Officer and head of Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service , says that "the general experience of gay and lesbian personnel serving in the Australian Defence Force is one free from discrimination or harassment". Instances of discrimination are isolated and subject to due process. "When harassment does happen," O'Brien told me, "the Defence Force quickly addresses these issues to ensure harassment of any kind is stamped out."

Unfortunately, I doubt the overseas experience will make much difference to the supporters of DADT.

If you want to know why it will be so hard for Barack Obama to repeal DADT check out this fascinating interview with an expert on the infiltration of the US army by the kind of fundamentalists who believe it's American's mission to spread Christianity at gun point.

[ comments? ]