Category: Opinion/Commentary

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Women can drive in Saudi Arabia. But if attitudes don’t change about women, nothing will

Saudi woman driving with niqab on
Women can now drive in Saudi Arabia, although it’s very restricted and guardianship laws still apply (Image: iStock)

Laws have been passed to allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia. They will come into affect from June next year.

Saudi Arabia, a Wahhabism state, has implemented a strict form of Islamic law, based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu’ran. According to FutureScopes, Saudi Arabia has been only one of two countries in the world that have had a ban on women driving (the other being Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled in 1996). This ban has given Saudi Arabia a bad reputation around the world, including by their ally, the United States.

 

The excuses given to prohibit women from driving are nothing short of ludicrous. An article from The Atlantic in 2013 reported that  Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al – Lohaidan, a judicial adviser of an association for Gulf psychologists, claimed that women shouldn’t be able to drive because it pushes the pelvis up and affects the ovaries. This is not backed up by any science.

Saudi women who have dared to drive or protest the ban have also been likened to terrorists. According to India Today, two Saudi women were arrested for ‘terrorism’ offences when they defied the driving ban in 2014.

 

Earlier this year, Asma Alsharif wrote in Reuters that King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz permitted women to be able to vote. Also, this year, Saudi women have been granted the right to take up tertiary studies, access some medical care and work without the permission of a male guardian.

As I pointed out above, while much progress has been made, there seems to be ingrained beliefs that will keep women oppressed. To be frank, I doubt that the most recent change has anything to do with rights of women itself.

The reasons why this ban has been so – called ‘lifted’ is to allow women to drive to work, to help the Saudi economy. From what I can gather, the change hasn’t come about because attitudes about men and women have changed. This explains why male “guardianship” is still enforced in the strict Islamic Kingdom.

 

Saudi Arabia is also infamous for accusing and executing people, predominately women for ‘sorcery’. Sounds quite 17th century, doesn’t it? (Note: for those who are confused why I picked that century and not the first millennia, I had the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller in mind. Same diff. Outdated and barbaric beliefs).

That is why these ‘advances’ that Saudi Arabia has made has been taken with a grain of salt. The reason why Saudi Arabia has had such a bad reputation globally when it comes to women’s rights is the fundamental beliefs about them. Without changes to those beliefs and attitudes across the country, what’s to stop women’s rights to study, access medical care and drive being stripped away again? Nothing, really.

 

From the outside looking in, Saudi Arabia is an epitome of how far the rights of women has to globally. It’s not just laws that need to be changed in such countries to make long – term impact. It’s beliefs, attitudes and distribution of power, particularly between men and women. Then, maybe the world will applaud Saudi Arabia for real progress.

Have you been to Saudi Arabia? Do you live there? What was/ is it like? Feel free to tell me your experiences.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

The AFL has every right to support the LGBTQ+ community, including same – sex marriage

I was going to criticise the AFL’s stance on same – sex marriage. My argument was that they shouldn’t it’s a hot – button issue and they may alienate spectators. Reading Justin Quill’s opinion piece in yesterday’s Herald Sun gave me a new perspective.

Companies DO have a right to express a view on social issues. As Quill pointed out, this is not the first time that the AFL has supported social causes. The AFL has had a reputation of trying to combat racism in the game, starting with former St. Kilda player, Nicky Winmar, who lifted up his Guernsey to defy racism back in 1993.

Now, the AFL has turned it’s attention to supporting LGBTQ+ people.

Over the past two years, the AFL has had the “Pride Round” between St. Kilda and the Sydney Swans. As I wrote last year in another one of my blogs, I supported this as I though it was good that the AFL were taking a stance against discrimination. I still hold that view.

While there are no openly gay or bi men in the AFL, there are two AFLW players in long – term same – sex relationships. It’s great that these women have gotten so much support, both from the media and the AFL.

 

Having said that, the AFL hasn’t been without controversy when it comes to homophobia, or at least, a lack of acceptance. In 2010, former Western Bulldogs and Brisbane Lions player Jason Akermanis controversially suggested that gay players should stay in the closet to avoid making other players uncomfortable. Maybe Akermanis’ comment revealed that, at the time, the AFL wasn’t openly embracing of gay and bi players.  Last week on ABC’s The Drum, former footballer – turned LGBTQ advocate, Jason Ball highlighted how hard it was to be gay in football. This was largely due to the prevalence of homophobic slurs and jokes in the game.

Jason Ball talks about how hard it has been for gay footballers when talking about the AFL’s controversial change in their logo in support of same – sex marriage.

The AFL has worked to tackle racism in the AFL and now turns it’s attention to homophobia and bi – phobia. This is great, as players, regardless of background, religion or sexuality should be able to play the game they love.

Likewise, LGBTQ+ spectators, should be free from discrimination and any that does occur will be condemned. LGBTQ+ who want attend a AFL game should be able to without fear of having slurs hurled at them or worse. Same – sex couples should be able to attend and enjoy the football like any straight couple. To be honest, it’s a shame that this still seems to be a controversial idea.

Regarding the criticism that the AFL is trying to enforce same – sex marriage on  the spectators and players, Quill made the point that no same – sex marriage opponent was being thrown out because of their stance. If that was the case, it’d be wrong. What the AFL are trying to do is make LGBTQ+ people feel welcome and that discrimination won’t be tolerated. That’s not a bad thing. Is it?

What are your thoughts on the AFL’s stance on gay marriage or the Pride Round? Let me know in the comments below. 

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Madeline should not have been let off for opposing same – sex marriage

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kbf7kY4lD5w

18 – year – old, only known as Madeline, was let go from her contract at Capital Kids Parties, Canberra, after putting ‘It’s OK to Vote No’ filter on her Facebook profile.

Her contractor, Madlin Sims made a Facebook post saying that she let go of Madeline because she thought her views were “hate speech”.

There are feelings that there is more to this story, but I’ll go with purely the issue of unfair dismissal and anti – discrimination.

I don’t think people like Madeline should be let off purely because of their political or religious beliefs. And, as long as they are not advocating for the killing of LGBTQ+ people or they are openly hostile towards people because of sexuality, gender, race, etc, they shouldn’t be sacked/ lose their contract.

However, I’ve got a funny feeling that some people who defend Madeline also want businesses to be legally be able to discriminate against people based on their relationships, gender or sexuality. It should be all or nothing. Sims should be able to discrminate against conservative Christians, or it should be unlawful for a business or servicecto refuse to employ or serve LGBTQ+ people. All of one or the other.

 

There is something that I think has been left out of this discussion. Madeline is only eighteen. She’s probably just finished Year 12. She still needs time to grow and I do feel for her. She’s had her work and her beliefs scrutinised in the most public way. Her character has already been debated,bsparked by Sims’ Facebook post. Regardless of who you agree with in this, Madeline is still so young. She has her whole life ahead of her and she’s been subject to public scrutiny already. All over a Facebook filter. That to me, is extreme.

 

I feel for Madlin Sims, too. By the look at her Instagram picture, which supince has been taken down, apparentky,bshe’s also incredibly young. And the abuse she and her brother have allegedly suffered must be condemned. Why this hasn’t been talked about and condemned by mainstream and independent media, I don’t know. (You already know how I feel about the whole ‘debate’ and ommissions,bso Ivwon’t repeat them here).

 

Unfortunateky, I think this case has put a bad light on the ‘Yes’ side, again. It’s also exposed my worst feears about same – sex marriage; a values clash between the Left and conservatives that I believe needs to be sorted before (if) same – sex marriage becomes legal in Australia.

 

What are your thoughts on anti – discrimination laws? Should there be any exemptions on moral grounds?

 

 

 

 

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Can we talk about LGBTQ+ mental health?

Mental health image of brain
Image: iStock

 

CW: suicide, mental illness, homophobia

It’s ironic that World Suicide Prevention Day and R U OK Day came in the height of the same – sex marriage debate. I think there has been a lack of genuine discussion on the issue of mental health of LGBTQ+ people throughout these past few months. Organisations who have brought up the issue like the Australian Medical Association and have been slammed for suggesting that the same – sex marriage debate is deemed a health risk to the LGBTQ+ community.

Couple embracing
Image: iStock

I don’t know how these findings came about and I’m always skeptical of data when the sample size used is particularly small.

However,  Canberra Times reported that counsellors did see a spike in calls from LGBTQ+ people as the debate raged.

 

I’m not saying that those who are going to or have already voted ‘no’ in this survey are responsible for any suicide or mental health crisis that an LGBTQ+ person may experience. However, I am disappointed that sections of the media has quickly dismissed suggestions that some may be affected.

 

While I support a debate and a vote — to be frank I think it’ll be better later on — I’d be lying if I said it has been a walk in the park for a number of LGBTQ+ people. To their credit, Canberra Times, Huffington Post Australia and SBS have brought this up. I’ve also seen a number of Facebook posts giving coping tips to LGBTQ+ people who are finding it hard. Kudos to those who made those posts.

All I ask from the public is this: regardless of your views on same – sex marriage or how you’ve voted, please, please look out for LGBTQ+ you’re close to. Be a soft place to fall. If you think they need it, encourage your loved ones to get professional help.

For those who do need help, contact Lifeline: 13 11 14

Beyond Blue: 1300 224 636

QLife

 

 

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

First of postal surveys out today

THe first of the postal surveys for same – sex marriage were sent out today.

The question has been revealed.

The question of the postal survey has been revealed (screenshot of ABC website)

 

I’m not going to go on about the debate. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know what’s been going on.

I just want to say a word to the Australian LGBTQ+ community. This wasn’t an easy couple of weeks. I’ve been in tears a few times, if I’m honest and I’m not in a same – sex relationship. For those who are in same – sex relationships, I can only imagine how hard it’s been. I want to give you all a big hug.

 

To those who will vote ‘no’, it hasn’t been easy for you, either. Many have felt unfairly demonised. Attacks have been vile. The latest case of tweets from author Benjamin Law and one of his followers were vile. I’m sorry for all those who have been abused like that. It’s wrong. Period.

I hope the results of this doesn’t tear this country, families, neighbours, etc, apart. If you know someone who has been affected by this debate, please continue to support them. To those in the LGBTQ+ community who are desperate for samw – sex marriage to become law, please refrain from lashing out. This won’t help anyone, especially members of the LGBTQ+ community.

If anyone needs help, you can call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue: 1300 224 636.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Abuse towards Dr. Pansy Lai is deplorable, however her views on ex – gay therapy are worrying

Dr. Pansy Lai on news.com.au website with allegations of supporting ex - gay therapy
News.com.au alleged doctor in anti same – sex marriage advertisement has supported ex – gay therapy.

Let me make this clear — the abuse suffered by Sydney’s Dr. Pansy Lai — some threats have been so serious that police have been involved — is inexcusable. To be quite frank, some in the ‘Yes’ campaign have been absolutely feral. Stop it!

Having said that, allegations, printed in news.com.au that Dr. Lai and the Australian Chinese for Families supports ex – gay ‘therapy’ concern me. She’s denies pushing ex – gay ‘therapy’ onto patients, but claims that there is no harm in the practice. This goes against mainstream medical opinion in the Western world.

I’m not calling for Dr. Lai to be sacked. I just hope her views don’t affect her practice.

To those who dismiss this and say that if you had a sore foot, would you care what her views were; GPs deal with mental health, too. Personally, when I was younger, a GP prescribed anti – depressants and organised for me to go to a counsellor after diagnosing me with mild depression

Secondly, I’ve been to counsellors in regard to issues with sexuality. This was after weeks —  maybe months — of fear and self – hatred. If I found out that the counsellors, Student Advisor (I was at school at the time), or other staff were prejudiced against LGBTQ+ people, I would have just hated myself even more and woudn’t have trusted the staff enough to open up. Just the fear of what could happen was bad enough (the fear wasn’t confirmed, by the way. They were all really good).

I’ll be frank, if I knew that my doctor had prejudices against LGBTQ+ people and/ or they supported ex – gay ‘therapy’, I wouldn’t trust them with my health, period. I would want someone who didn’t adhere to proven and accepted medical practice.

 

For those who still dismiss my critique and say that it doesn’t matter, how would you feel if your doctor had personal beliefs about vaccination that went against mainstream medical knowledge? If your brought a child to this doctor, even for other reasons, would you trust him/ her? I’ve got a feeling many wouldn’t. I feel that way about any medical professional who spreads misinformation about LGBTQ+ people. It’s happened for too long. I can’t tell you how many YouTube videos I’ve watched and how many stories I’ve read online about LGBTQ+ people who’ve gone through ex – gay ‘therapy’. They’re lives were nearly destroyed, until they accepted their sexuality.

Again, I condemn the abuse towards Dr. Lai, especially when police had to involved. I won’t even say that she should be deregistered. What I do think should happen is that maybe there needs to be an overall evaluation of the medical profession to make sure that GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc, don’t have  any harmful beliefs about LGBTQ+ people that is going to turn into harmful practice. LGBTQ+ people deserve proper health care like everyone else.

Has this post brought up any issues for you? You can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beond Blue: 1300 224 636.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Should businesses and government departments get out of the same – sex marriage debate?

Canva images: lawyer, doctor and Quantas plane
Images: Canva

Today, Andrew Bolt criticised supporters of same – sex marriage and the Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, the ACT government, the Australian Medical Association, the ABC and the NSW Law Society for publicly campaigning for same – sex marriage.

In the past, Air b’n’b and Qantas has also been slammed for pushing for same – sex marriage.

This makes me raise a question: should councils, law firms and businesses get involved in political debate? On any issue: gay marriage, climate change, Recognition, etc? What if, as it’s the case with Qantas, the CEO is LGBTQ+ themselves?

Bullying is wrong. Full stop. I pointed that out yesterday.  That aside, there seems to be a push on both sides to limit or stifle debate, to be honest. One of the main arguments that businesses and councils should not be involved in these debates or taking sides is that the customers have a range of political views. In regards to the AMA, the clash is internal, with the organisation being criticised for false claims by some members regarding same – sex marriage and parents. However,  I have to say that I exposed one of the studies Bolt’s cited last year; Mark Regenerus, supposedly the largest study on same – sex families and its impact on children. However, even he admitted to Focus on the Family; a conservative organisation who promoted his findings that his findings actually didn’t prove same – sex families were worse for children.

Qantas has been a target by conservatives, most recently former tennis great and now Pentecostal pastor, Margaret Court who wrote a letter to The West Australian newspaper, threatening to boycott the airline ‘where possible’ because of their vocal support for same – sex marriage.

Now, the Sydney Council is under fire for allegedly supporting the “Yes” campaign financially, but not the ‘no’ case.

So, my question is: should corporations or governments get involved in any contentious political debate? Climate change? Safe Schools? Aboriginal Recognition? The asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru?

 

It’s not only Australia that companies have been under fire for their corporate stance on same – sex marriage. In 2014, Atlanta – based chicken sandwich franchise, Chick – a – fil – a caused controversy when the CEO, Dan Cathy vocally opposed same – sex marriage. He ended up backtracking kind of – not from his opinion that same – sex marriage was wrong, but by promising to refrain from expressing it publicly in the future.

Either the backlash against Qantas, Air B’n’B, the Sydney Council, the AMA and Chick – a – fil – a is justified or it’s not. Either CEO’s and companies can support political causes or it can’t.

Another thing, if a company, council or medical organisation ever does take a political stance, it’s going to have it’s opponents, regardless of the issue or side. Is this allowed or should everyone should be left with their individual views, with the company itself being neutral? I think it’s great when companies support the LGBTQ+ community or  Aboriginal people —the AFL is a great example of this — aiming to promote inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community and people from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. Pushing a political cause though? I”m not sure.

 

What I do think is that all companies and brands should be held to the same standard. If Qantas for example shouldn’t publicly campaign for same – sex marriage, then a company shouldn’t campaign against it. Companies on both sides, I think, should show impartiality. Because, hey, some of their customers may be LGBTQ+ and/ or support same – sex marriage.

Should companies remain out of political debate? Share what you think.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Magda Szubanski demonstrates the personal side of the same – sex marriage ‘debate’

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fiwakeupwithtoday%2Fvideos%2F1709373355763989%2F&show_text=0&width=560

(From Today Show Facebook page)

In this ‘debate’ on same – sex marriage, I have often wondered who are letting LGBTQ+ people speak.

Things are starting to look up. The latest example is from Today Show (Australia) where comedian, actress and LGBTQ+ advocate, Magda Szubanski gave an emotional interview explaining why same – sex marriage is so important and the effect of the debate.

This isn’t the first time she’s opened up about her experiences and her passion for the legalisation of same – sex marriage in Australia. In 2012, she came out publicly on The Project and explained how she felt about the same – sex marriage debate. Her coming out was a classic!

I think Magda Szubanski’s story demonstrates that same – sex marriage is not a ‘non – issue’ for some members of the LGBTQ+ community. It’s real, it’s raw and it’s personal. In both The Project and The Today Show interviews, Szubanski emphasised her own struggles as a young gay person, obviously remembering what it was like to have your life and love under scrutiny (this was when homosexuality was still illegal in many parts of Australia. Tasmania was the last state to decriminalise homosexuality in 1997).

I think this is what needs to be thought about when debating, not just same – sex marriage, but anti – discrimination laws, the back pedalling of anti – vilification laws and advertising standards, etc.

So, what can be done?

Can I say, yet again, please, PLEASE, keep an eye out for LGBTQ+ loved ones. If they are struggling, be there for them. Encourage them to get further help if they feel they need it.

For LGBTQ+ people who are struggling, please don’t suffer in silence. Talk to someone, or at least take the steps you need to make yourself feel better. Switch off from news and social media if you have to.  Regardless of what many people, including allies, might say, this can and often is very taxing emotionally. Please look after yourself.

If anyone needs any support you can contact:

Lifeline: 13 11 14

 Beyond Blue: 1300 224 636. (The website has great information about mental health too).

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Censorship isn’t the answer

Red 'Censored' sign
Image: Canva

Last night, Andrew Bolt and Daily Telegraph columnist, Caroline Marcus criticised Facebook for blocking a user after he posted on the upcoming postal plebiscite on same – sex marriage.

After pressure from the public, the page and post have been restored.

This has sparked an angry response from some of The Bolt Report fans. In retaliation, some have said they’d retract their support for same – sex marriage,

Screenshot of FB conversation on 'The Bolt Report
Censorship and bullying tactics are driving people away from supporting same – sex marriage

 

The same – sex marriage debate hasn’t been easy for some members of the LGBTQ+ community.  Frankly, it’s made me cry at times, and I’m single and asexual. I can only imagine how it must be for some same – sex couples. To have your identity, your relationship and your rights debated is tough.

However, I don’t think silencing debate will help the LGBTQ+ community. To be frank, the actions of some have been appalling. From the disgraceful treatment of Margaret Court on The Project earlier this year, to the threats made against the Australian Christian Lobby (I’m not commenting on the current case that’s presently before the court), and more, the LGBTQ+ community and the same – sex marriage campaign in particular are bleeding supporters.

Please step back.

The past couple of weeks have been hard for many LGBTQ+ people. I get it. I really do. But the attacking of opponents, or even some supporters like Marcus, is just wrong. Stop it!

If you are struggling, don’t be afraid to cry. Journal. Scream,  if you need to. But don’t abuse people in real life or online. If you do say something in the heat of the moment, apologise.

If you think you are struggling too much, please, please reach out and seek help. Talk to a family member or friend. Let them support you. If you think you need more, seek out professional help. You can call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Same – sex marriage affects people, maybe including people you care about

I watch Sky News Australia from Monday to Thursday. I have my regulars: The Bolt Report at 7 p.m. Paul Murray Live at 9 and Chris Kenny’s Head’s Up at 11 (although recently, I’ve only been watching the start).

Not surprisingly, their sick of the same – sex marriage debate. I get it. For them, it means nothing. Bolt, Murray and Kenny are straight and married. So are most (almost all) of the panellists they have.

But what about people they love?

Gay marriage image: rainbow coloured hands holding each other.
Image: Canva

To his credit, at least Andrew Bolt has acknowledged his LGBTQ+ friends and family during this debate. Last year, in an interview with Senior Pastor James Macpherson of Calvary Christian Church, Bolt admitted that he regretted the strain that the same – sex marriage debate had on his relationship with someone he’s close to. Recently, I have to say, on his shows, both on The Bolt Report and 2GB, he is often very cautious and keeps his loved ones in mind when talking about his view, even in his recent criticisms about the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and their data on same – sex parenting.

Andrew Bolt expressed regret over the strain that the same – sex marriage debate has had on some of his loved ones

But while Chris Kenny and Paul Murray don’t oppose same – sex marriage, I get annoyed that they talk about the plebiscite as if it’s of no consequence to anyone. That’s how I view it, anyway. Yes, lives ARE affected. Whether you like to admit it or not, some LGBTQ+ people do see this as a personal attack on their rights to live authentically.

 

I’ve written before about the need for more voices from the LGBTQ+ community and those who care for them or work with them (i.e. in mental health), into the debate. Not that I’m knocking people, especially Paul Murray for his stance, not just on this, but other issues as well, such as the alleged bomb scare at Melbourne’s Joy 94.9 last year. His regular panellist, Graham Richardson defended Alan Joyce after he was publicly criticised by tennis champion, Margaret Court. I’m not knocking these guys. I’m really not. But while we should value them as an LGBTQ+ ally, I don’t think it’s the same as letting an LGBTQ+ person being able to openly talk about their own experiences; why the issue means so much to them.

 

Mamamia has done this. Angie Green wrote a passionate open letter expressing why same – sex marriage was important to her, and it was her brother. Why can’t we hear more about relatives of LGBTQ+ people about how they feel about same – sex marriage?

The reason why I bring this up is because, for some, this is not a ‘non – issue’. This is about people’s lives. It is about safety and for certain members of the community to live authentically, without fear. It is about being legally recognised as married, but also, I believe a social affirmation that LGBTQ+ have freedom of expression and can do things like hold their partner’s hand in public. That is a separate issue, and it won’t be automatically granted if (when) same – sex marriage is legalised. But that’ll be another crucial step to acceptance.