Gay marriage and fluid sexuality

South Australian Senator, Eric Abetz caused an uproar when he suggested that gay people can form straight relationships on Sky News when talking about the push for same – sex marriage. This has caused outrage among members of the LGBTQ+ community with accusations of Abetz using the harmful rhetoric that was used to make LGBTQ+ people believe they could become straight; a practice that has been condemned by mainstream health bodies. Former pastor, Anthony Venn – Brown has dismissed Abetz’s claims, saying that gays and lesbians don’t change their orientation when married to someone of the opposite sex. He said it was a case of ‘situational heterosexuality. I want to play the devil’s advocate here. Researchers have suggested that sexuality can be fluid for some people. That’s been explored in the media quite a lot the past few years. Some people are bisexual (sometimes on varying degrees), so theoretically, they’ll be able to fall for a man or woman (or other gender). There must be a distinction here, though:

Some people are, always have been and always will be gay. 

Also, fluid sexuality is said to have environmental factors, whether it’s to do with epigenetics ,  (a theory that is rejected by some in the LGBTQ+ community), or not I don’t think anyone has determined… yet(?). However, that’s not to say that LGBTQ+’s sexuality is definitely going to change due to environment. 

 

To be honest, I think the theory is quite pointless in the same – sex marriage debate (which I think that’s what they were debating on Sky). So some people experience fluidity in their sexuality and/ or fall in love with someone that doesn’t fall in line with what their orientation. So? That doesn’t mean that there aren’t gays, lesbians, people who are homo-romantic, etc, that want to get married. Some in the LGBTQ+ community, along with their allies, feel that marriage is a crucial step forward towards LGBTQ+ acceptance (I still argue that’s still an overly simplistic argument, but that’s another post for another day and it won’t be a magic bullet, but that’s another post for the future).

 

While I think Senator Abetz wasn’t entirely wrong in his statement, I think it was pointless and was bound to be taken negatively by members of the LGBTQ+ community, especially given his clashes with members of the LGBTQ+ community over same – sex marriage over the past two years. And I think it’s important to reinstate – I believe that some people may experience fluid sexuality or degrees of bisexuality. But there are people who are, always have been and always will be gay. Let’s not use the fluidity theory or bisexuality to bully and shame LGBTQ+ all over again.

 

 

Yes! Prog rock pioneers to be inducted into the Rock’n’roll Hall of Fame

English progressive rock pioneers, Yes are going to be inducted in the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame on April 7, (Yes, We’re in the Hall, Kim Wilson, Sunday Herald Sun, April 2, p. 13). They have sold over 50 million albums since the release of their self – titled album in 1969. Despite their success, they only had one U.S. No. 1 in 1983 with their pop song, ‘Owner of a lonely heart’.

Almost fifty years later, the band has kept a loyal fan base, while attracting new ones. Lead singer, Jon Anderson, puts their success down to the ability to grow as musicians:

Music shouldn’t just be a commodity. It’s about evolving as a musicianand a group of musicians. And that’s what Yes did.

I’ve personally only heard ‘owner of a lonely heart’… at least that’s the only one I know of (I might have heard others sometimes without recognising who they were). I’m familiar with other progressive rock bands at the time, especially Pink Floyd and Eletric Lighting Orchestra.

It’s amazing how many singers/ bands from the ’60’s, ’70’s and ’80’s have made such an impact. Unfortunately, we’ve lost a few recently: Prince, David Bowie, Glen Frey (Eagles), George Michael, and one of my favourites, guiatarist, Rick Parfitt from Status Quo. Others have kept going. Rock legend Suzi Quatro came out of ‘retirement’ this year and performed in Australia earlier this year. I saw her for the fifth time, (yep, you read that right – four times in Melbourne, once in Mulwala). Fleetwood Mac performed in Australia earlier this year, despite a health scare that rocked the band.

Do you like the band Yes? What’s your favourite song?

Extending 18C the Racial Discrimination Act is a bad idea

 In the midst of debate on changing 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Labor Party have said they wanted the law extended. They want the LGBTQ+ community, people with a disability as well as racial minorities to be protected. So, it would be an offence to offend, insult, humiliate people on basis of race, ethnic background, disability and sexual orientation.

As someone with a disability and someone who isn’t straight, I have one thing to say on the proposal – GOD PLEASE NO!!!!

No, no, no, no, no. i can’t say this enough! The way 18C has been used already has proven to be disastrous: the students from Queensland University of Technology and the case against the late The Australian cartoonist Bill Leak suggest, while defendants were not prosecuted, the law does more to destroy people’s reputations rather than actually making Australia a safe country for racial minorities – the original intent of the law.

 

One of the fears is that if 18C was extended, it will silence opponents of same – sex marriage. I get that this is an emotional issue to many in the LGBTQ+ community. But this isn’t the right way to go about it. This extension will not stop homophobes or racists. In fact, I fear it will only aggravate people, not win support for the people that are meant to be protected. Anti – discrimination measures brought into law by the Obama Administration in the U.S. has already backfired with anti – trans laws (e.g. HB in North Carolina), being put forward by hard-line Republicans across the country.

Meanwhile, in Australia, I fear that the Left and so – called LGBTQ+ allies should embrace for a similar pushback. The latest events, such as the Cooper’s Brewery/ Bible society backlash, I believe that would have only confirmed to opponents exactly why LGBTQ+ people SHOULDN’T get legal rights. They won’t be won over if they feel their rights to freedom of speech, conscience, etc are being threatened. Also, there will be an increase – not decrease – support for policies such as multiculturalism.

 

Personally, I say scrap 18C altogether and replace it with an anti – hate crimes Act. This can be used to combat things like Antisemitism, which seems to be at alarming levels around the world now. There is likely going to be a case in Canada real soon where an Imam is going to be charged when he preached that Jews should be killed, (by the way, the controversial Imam has  also received condemnation from other Muslims). Along with anti – defamation and possibly anti – discrimination laws in regarding services, (well, that’s another can of worms for another day), that’s all minorities should need. I think the majority of liberals and conservatives can agree with anti – hate crime measures. Nobody has a right to physically harm or threaten another person.

 

While safety does need to be considered, stifling thought and speech has proven to do more harm than good. Too often, laws like 18C have left people feeling silenced and frustrated, rather than help people its allegedly supposed to protect. Maybe it’s time for a rethink.

Do you support a change to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? Do you think such laws should be scrapped or extended to protect other groups? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooper’s Brewery receive backlash over gay marriage debate

 

Design
QANTAS boss, Alan Joyce has been a vocal supporter of same – sex marriage, despite public criticism.

Coopers Brewery have copped a whopping from same – sex marriage supporters after they agreed to have their product featured in Bible Society’s “Keeping it Light”, which was a debate on same – sex marriage. When they withdrew their support and reinstated their support for same – sex marriage, they got a backlash from conservatives.  The debate was between Goldstein Liberal MP Tim Wilson and former SAS officer and Liberal MP for Canning, Andrew Hastie.

I saw a segment of the debate on same – sex marriage on YouTube between Hastie, a conservative Christian and Wilson, who is openly gay and who describes himself as agnostic and on a “journey” to find the truth about god. Wilson supports a change in the Marriage Act to allow same – sex couples, while Hastie firmly believes in maintaining the Marriage Act as it is. After a backlash from same – sex marriage supporters, Managing Director Dr. Tim Cooper offered a public apology to same – sex marriage supporters and reinforced the company’s support for same – sex marriage. After their apology, Cooper’s Brewery was slammed by conservatives by backing down.

 

I saw the debate on YouTube and I think both Wilson and Hastie should be applauded for their conduct. They were both very respectful, while both articulating their views. Neither lead personal attacks and Hastie never demeaned Wilson because of his sexuality and spoke respectfully of his long-term partner. Both sides of the marriage debate could learn from this. For same – sex marriage supporters, not all opponents are the enemy. You can still prefer maintaining the Marriage Act without attacking the LGBTQ+ community. That’s how a debate should be. Two people putting their points across, while no one feels threatened or demeaned.

 

I get whey people are concerned. I get the pain of having your lives constantly debated, sometimes unfairly. I never once thought that if the plebiscite was going ahead last year that the process would be a walk in the park for members of the LGBTQ+ community. Therefore I think one of the biggest failures of the Coalition government – with not a lot of help from Labor, mind you – was to ensure that supports were in place to help LGBTQ+ community and families in distress when things got too much. I also didn’t like the way that some tried to back pedal anti – discrimination laws while the debate was going on.

On the other hand, I genuinely believed that not having a debate, especially on issues like free speech and the impact on same – sex marriage opponents would only backfire on the LGBTQ+ community in the long term, as it has in Brazil  and the U.S. My fears have lessened in the past couple of weeks, especially after “Married at First Sight” controversy which saw two Jehovah Witness parents rejecting their gay son’s wedding. I remember the explosion on Facebook in support for the couple who married in Florida. I thought that was so touching. Some of these comments were made by people I know personally, as well as on news articles. I take this as a good sign – that people are willing to call out homophobia when they see or hear it.

Since the spat over Cooper’s, I’ve also been thinking of whether major companies should be involved in politics. It’s not just Cooper’s that have copped criticism. Alan Joyce from Qantas, a long-time supporter of same – sex marriage,  has copped criticism from conservatives for making their support for same – sex marriage known and linking it to their brand.

 

International Women’s Day and… traffic lights and other trivialities.

So, it’s International Women’s Day. A day that is supposed to celebrate and advocate for women. But now, it’s turned into a trivial laughing stock, at least here in Australia. Example: the Andrews Labor Government of Victoria has this bright idea (sarcasm in case you didn’t know) about changing traffic lights across Melbourne because they allegedly spark an “unconscious bias”. I kid you not. These things are causing sexist attitudes, apparently.

Design

Memo to the Andrews Government, women do wear pants, you know!

Secondly, the ABC has come up with the idea that today, all the news, current affairs and radio stations are filled with all women. Men, apparently, get the day off. Now, I’ve talked in the past about women in the media and controversies that have occurred over the years about women over a certain age (usually 40’s and above), being replaced by younger women or men. I understand why that ruffled feathers, although, luckily, I haven’t been hearing about that happening lately. But what does this achieve, really? Supposedly it all will go back to normal tomorrow anyway.

It’s this sort of trivial garbage that scares millennial women off feminism. Feminism doesn’t seem to be about fighting for equality anymore, nor is it about confronting issues facing women either here or abroad. For example, former Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin has repeatedly condemned underage girls who get married off to older men in some Muslim communities. Child marriages have also known to happen in the U.S. as recently as 2010 and, while it’s “rare”, Pew Research acknowledged that 5 in every 1,000 of girls between fifteen and seventeen. While rare, as of 2016, it is legal in all American states. In most states, 16 and 17 – year – old teenagers can marry and in Massachusetts and New Hampshire,  children can marry as young as 12. In some states, such as Florida, a minor can get a court’s permission to marry if a party is pregnant. Fortunately, last year, Virginia finally outlawed the practice. Let’s hope other states follow suit soon. As for Australians, migrants, as well as citizens need to know it’s condemned here. Every time it happens, the perpetrators need to be prosecuted legally and face fierce criticism by society.

The issue of domestic violence is raised quite a bit. We should stick to that – make sure that there are adequate services to help women (and men) leave abusive marriages and relationships. But then again, this issue has also been hijacked by ideologues and conflicting claims about the rate often takes all the time, rather than funding services. Case in point from a few years ago:

Not to mention that domestic violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women is rarely discussed by women who claim to be “feminists”, including those in the media. Not to mention the ignorance around Keysar Trad’s comments a few weeks ago on “The Bolt Report”. Look, domestic violence needs to be condemned. All of it. Full stop. No ideology, religious, political or otherwise should stop us from condemning domestic or other violence and helping victims find safety and justice.

There is a lot that young girls face too. When I was researching for my last blog post, I was horrified at the number of links to stories surrounding severe  abuse of young girls I found. And that doesn’t take into account atrocities like female genital mutilation (FGM), which happens in the West too, by the way. A few days ago, wrote about the horrific number of trans women that have been murdered in the U.S. this year alone – and we’re not even a quarter into the year yet. More globally, Saudi Arabia has come under the spotlight when it was reported that two Pakistani trans women were beaten and tortured to death by Saudi police. Saudi police has since acknowledged that two trans women died in custody, but denies that they were tortured.

 

These sorts of issues are what should be talked about on a day like International Women’s Day – plus a lot more I didn’t mention that affect both cis women and trans women around the world. Society doesn’t need more token gestures by feminists for anyone else, for that matter. We need real change, both here and around the world. Unfortunately, I think culture wars and a lack of honesty prevents us from getting done what needs to be done to help women and their loved ones. I’m starting to get sick of it. Can we all forget the tokenism, forget political correctness and work out ways to help ALL people achieve their potential and live their lives in safety and fulfilment?

 

So, what do you think? Have you/ are you doing anything for International Women’s Day? Feel free to put your thoughts in the comments section. 

 

Racial Discrimination Act: change? Scrap?

The raging debate over 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is still still red hot to some commentators, especially Andrew Bolt. The case involving seven students from Queensland University of Technology – three of which were taken to court by Cindy Prior – after the students were told to leave a computer lab allegedly reserved for Aboriginal students. The boys protested on Facebook, calling it “fighting segregation with segregation” and one asking sarcastically where the “white supremacist” computers were. One of the defendants Callum Thwaites was also accused of using the “N” word, but has emphatically denied it.

While the case was dropped and Prior was demanded that she pay thousands in legal fees, which allegedly sent her bankrupt. While the defendants were ruled as being innocent of any crime, their careers have allegedly being trashed. According to Bolt, Alex Wood explained how his future had been badly damaged and his chosen career had been destroyed:

At that point in my life, it all sort of hit me at once. I was afraid. I felt that uni had been for nothing. I had studied quite hard and had a GPA of 6.3, and I thought that was going to go down the drain. I thought I was going to lose my job and potentially not be able to get a job after uni. I thought my friends would shun me if they thought I was racist. I honestly believe 18C was extremely close to ruining my life and still has the potential to do so.

There were absolutely no winners in this case. Reading about this case,  especially what Wood has said has made me change my mind about 18C. The fact it got as far as it did and had such devastating consequences on everyone involved.

There are three options that are often brought up when discussing this case and 18C – scrap the section, take the words “insult” and “offend” out of the section or leave it exactly how it is. I wonder if there could be another option – have a blanket anti – hate – crimes act that covers race, religion, sexuality,  gender identity, etc.Currently, Australia has a number of anti – discrimination acts, both State and Federal. Why not make it all one?

I would say too, that words like “offend” should be avoided. Why? Because they are too vague and open to interpretation. So what should an anti – hate crimes act entail. Well, quite simply, it should make it unlawful to attack someone because of race, gender, sexuality, etc. I also think that anti discrimination provisions for employers and services should remain. It’s just that, I believe that QUT case has proven that 18C doesn’t work. Even if you win, you lose. There needs to be a line drawn. There is no room for incitement to violence or deliberate discrimination or abuse in our society. However, what I find so heartbreaking is when well – meaning people are dragged through mud and the mud sticks no matter what they say. That’s what I think about the case against Andrew Bolt in 2011. I didn’t read the two articles that got him sued and were banned by the court, but I have since read his arguments since. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard Bolt being branded a racist. Last night on Sky’s ‘Paul Murray Live’, I saw a clip where Labor Senator, Sam Dastyari – who is Iranian born – ranted against changes to 18C. While he didn’t call Bolt by name, it was obvious, I think, that the tirade was partly aimed at him. Unsurprisingly, Murray condemned Dastyari’s speech.

I just don’t think 18C as it is is working. It may have had it’s place in 1975 when the Act was first introduced, but something has gone off. I think it needs to be mended so it can’t be open to interpretation as easy. Like I said, what about have a blanket anti – hate crimes Act instead plus workplace and services protections?

What do you think about 18C? Do you think it should be mended? Scrapped? To those who are in other countries, what anti – discrimination laws do you have? Do you think they work or are adequate? What changes would you like to see? I know these are quite a few full on questions. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments. 

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Junk food ban debate… again.

 

design
Image from Canva
wp-1487736678835.jpg
Food label on a microwave chicken roll. 4. 1 grams of sugar, 13.2 grams total fat, 2.1 grams saturated.

 

According to ‘Herald Sun’, debate on banning junk food in school canteens and sports events has been sparked again. There is a new push for schools, sports clubs and advertisers to ban junk food in a bid to combat the rising number of children and adults who are overweight or obese. Taxes for junk food have also been talked about – again. I’ve got a few thoughts about this.

Firstly, I’m not entirely against banning or limiting junk food advertising at certain times of the day, especially when school – aged children are most likely going to be home. In terms of sport sponsorship and advertising, how it will affect particularly rural or regional football and netball clubs in particular need to be considered. It does make sense that sports events/ training coaches offer healthy food. But like with many issues with advertising, a lack of sponsorship from major companies, including junk food companies (Coca Cola, etc), may bring the sports club to financial ruin. Of course, maybe they can rely on healthier food brands, (Sanitarium, maybe?).
Further taxing junk food may prove problematic in lower socio – economic areas. Instead,  I believe healthy food needs to be more affordable and accessible in these communities. I also strongly believe that food labelling should be more explicit. The unfortunate thing is that, much frozen food that can be put in a microwave has high levels of sugar, a substance that is a major contributor to obesity and other health problems. Yet, due to convenience, many people, which use to include myself, get these foods on a regular basis.It was only when I looked at the ingredients that I was horrified at the amount of sugar in particular that was in it.

 

How many people actually look at the ingredients in the packaging, especially if your in a hurry? Probably not many. I think this maybe where people can get trapped. I know the government has talked about colour – coding food (red for unhealthy for regular consumption, green for good, etc). What happened to that? “Fruit” or “cereal” products have been proven to be just as unhealthy, including Sanitarium’s “Up and Go” – a drink that supposedly can be taken if you don’t have time for breakfast? The catch? Yep, it’s full of sugar. Not really a replacement to (low – sugar) cereal, wholegrain bread, etc. This may sound basic, but I still think it’s deceptive to give people the false impression that certain food isn’t too unhealthy, or worse, food/ drinks that you may think may be valuable, only to be told it’s full of sugar. I guess the only way to go is to buy whole foods, fruits, vegetables, etc.

 

What about fast food? We know about outlets such as McDonalds and KFC are high in salt, fat and sugar. But you should also be careful at places like Subway too.  In 2013, news.com.au reported that a study from University of California discovered teenagers who ate Subway were consuming the same calories and higher amount of salt then those who ate McDonalds. I eat Subway from time to time and haven’t had any problems. I’d advise to stay away from the fatty meats and have plenty of salad. Preferably without cedar cheese apparently (I always have it on mine, though).

 

Healthy eating should be simple and cheap. While “common sense” plays a part, i think supermarkets and fast food outlets have a responsibility as well. Don’t advertise something as “healthy” when in reality, it’s not. Would it hurt companies to put sugar and/ or salt content CLEARLY on the label so people will be more likely to read it? I just think that something can and should be done. We need to take responsibility for ourselves, sure. But retailers can make it a little bit easier. They can at least be  honest about what’s in their products.

What do you think? Should food companies be more transparent about what’s in their food?

 

Heels: lots of pain, but any gain?

image

This month’s issue of Cosmopolitan (Australia), exposed that in the U.S. alone, around 20,000 women have to be admitted to emergency because of injuries caused by wearing stilettos. They offered a few tips on how to avoid those injuries, like foot exercises, taking them off during the day etc. I still wonder why they are so necessary for women to wear them at all.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that for a lot of women, heels do look attractive, especially stilettos. Also, some women gain confidence looking taller, especially women who are naturally very short.

image

What I wonder is, why do women feel the need to put themselves through pain, and possible injury or deformity, to look attractive? Do men find it attractive when women where stilettos (I’d actually like to hear from men on that, do you? Do you care?).

I remember watching Sunrise one day last year (or the year before) and co – host Samantha Armytage and news presenter Natalie Barr were talking about how a producer (I think) who said that the women had to wear heals at work when at Sunrise.(OK, my recollection of actually when it when it was said and who allegedly said it is sketchy, but I remember the bit about heels). Why do women “have to” wear stilettos to work, including in the media? I said this in one of my older blogs when it happened. I wrote at the time, why and also that this may leave some women such as disabled women who can’t wear heels even more marginalised in certain workplaces.

 

The effects heels have on the spine in particular is fairly common knowledge in the medical field and in society as a whole. Heels three inches (7.62 cm), high throws your spine out of alignment, causing back pain and, in the long run, cause bulges in the ankles due to the long term strain.

Sex and the City star, Sarah Jessica Parker admitted in 2013 that wearing heels extensively during Sex and the City took a toll on her feet. According to E! News, Parker was warned against wearing heels any longer to prevent further damage.

 

I find  it ironic that in the exact same magazine that reported the rate of injury from stilettos, is the same magazine that constantly markets stilettos to young women or has models wearing them. I’ve read Cosmopolitan for a few years now and to be honest, I can’t remember any of the models not wearing stilettos. They may have done it once or twice. Mixed messages much? For a magazine that prides itself on women’s empowerment, why promote, almost exclusively, clothes by models in stilettos. Why not promote all shoe types, shoes that all women have a chance of wearing?

 

 

I’m not here to tell you that you should or shouldn’t wear heels. You can wear what you like. Like I’ve written before, it’s the pressure, the “unwritten rules”. It’s the promotion of fashion in which some women will never be able to wear, leaving others left out and marginalised that I have a problem with.

Maybe I’m mistaken. What do you think about heels? Do you wear them? Do you prefer women to wear them? 

Valentine’s Day – what’s it mean in 2017

design

Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day, the day when lovers declare their love for each other and secret admirers tell their crush how they feel. Well, that’s the common narrative.

Of course, the origin of Valentine’s Day goes way back. There are two commonly stories that are thought to be the origin of Valentine’s Day. One was that the ancient Romans had a festival Lupercalia in which, according to NPR, men sacrificed a goat or dog before beating young women who were looking to find a mate. I’ve read elsewhere over the years that a names were drawn in a ‘lottery’ to determine who would marry whom. This festival was believed to take place between the 13 and 15 of February. Things changed when Catholicism became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and the festival was dedicated to St. Valentine.

Another common theory is that Valentine was a Roman Catholic priest in the Rome around the fourth century AD. At this time, there was a crackdown on Christian traditions, including marriage. Valentine defied the Emperor, and even when he was arrested and inprisoned, continued to conduct weddings in prison. While in prison, he befriended the daughter of a Roman guard. They exchanged letters (a.k.a. ‘valentines’). It’s alleged that Valentine died on February 14, hence the date. However, the exact identity of the Saint Valentine isn’t known (there is more than one St. Valentine).

 

The romantic aspect of the day also has a long history, with tokens being exchanged by lovers as far back as the Middle Ages. The 1800’s was when Valentine’s Day cards started being sold by retail outlets.

Fast forward 200 or so years and I think you’ll find attitudes toward Valentine’s Day split. Some say it’s too commercial, some use it as a day to show love and appreciation to friends, while others use it to spoil their partners or show interest in a crush. I do get that the day is heavily commercialised and it’s mostly linked with American culture, rather than Australian, but I think the idea of celebrating love – either romantic or platonic – is lovely and sonething that the world could use more of, to be honest.For years, I’ve thought that Valentine’s Day was a great opportunity to show love to people who you may not show it on any given day. For lovers, it may be the push you need to propose to your loved one. You may just want to stay home woth your loved one that night, watching ‘The Big Bang Theory’ on DVD. Whatever floats your boat.

For some people, it may cause a genuine pain – that you wish you had someone, or maybe a reminder of a past relationship. I won’t say that this is silly or that you shouldn’t feel that way. If Valentine’s Day is one that brings pain, I hope you’ll find comfort in surrounding yourself with the things and people you love and care about.

 

Ultimately, Valentine’s Day is like any other day. By that, I mean it’s good for others, sometimes a new opportunity and a day that you can make what you will.

What does Valentine’s Day mean to you? How will you spend the day?

Free speech and the responsibility to speak out

Last week and today, Newscorp columnist, Andrew Bolt condemned cartoonist Larry Pickering for anti – Muslim and anti gay slurs. He also slammed former Coalition member, Ross Cameron for not calling Pickering out.

Well done, Mr. Bolt.

No, really I mean it. It means a lot for a respected columnist/ commentator to use his platform to stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, and especially gays that have been persecuted in one of the most brutal regimes. I also applaud him for confronting South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi for his controversial comments on same – sex marriage back in 2012 while he was a guest on Sky’s ‘The Bolt Report’ last Monday night.

It is great that Bolt is being consistent in calling out homophobia, racism, etc when it occurs. I hope he – as well as other journalists – CONSISTENTLY continue to call homophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination when they  occur. As I wrote many times last year, I was very disappointed when Bolt and most other journalists didn’t call out and condemn the threats made toward Melbourne’s only LGBTQ radio station JOY 94.9FM last year during the plebiscite debate. Since it’s a new year, (well another year since that event), I’m willing to believe that Bolt and others are willing to turn a new leaf and call out homophobia when it happens and not excuse it. So far, I have been pleasntly surprised with Bolt and his support for members of the LGBTQ+ community – at least condemning abuse. I hope he keeps it up. I also hope others follow in his footsteps.

In the posts that, Bolt was talking – as he often does – about free speech and not having anti discrimination legislation such as Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to deal with it and instead, have racists, homophobes, etc, have to face criticism by the wider public. This can only happen if people are willing to speak out. This only works when people refuse to turn a blind eye or deaf ear to what’s happening. People who call out racism or homophobia, including slurs, should be able to do so, without having everyone on their backs. Members of the LGBTQ+ community and racial minorities NEED to be able to tell of their experiences. Some things that are said maybe uncomfortable to hear. Tough! If free speech is the way to comat racism and queerphobia, then members of racial minorities and the LGBTQ+ community need to be able to speak and be heard!

 

Lastly, I think there needs to be an overall community effort to eliminate homophobia and racism – in schools, health and the widercommunity. Generally, I think we’ve done this quite well in Australia, with, for example, the Pride Match between St. kilda Saints and Sydney Swans last year. At the time, I said that I thought it was great for such a major, traditionally macho, pastime and cultural icon in Australia to open their arms out to LGBTQ+ players and spectators.

Of course, the mainstrem media has played a major role in embracing members of the LGBTQ+ community and rallying behind their causes. Over the years, I’ve written about the media’s increasing reporting on asexuality and I think that most of them have done a decent job. I still continue to see articles, most which are pretty well written. They mostly validate the experiences of asexual people, which I think is important. This month, Cosmopolitan has released a special LGBTQ Pride issue. I want to talk about it in more depth at a later date.

 

Maybe with all these advances and perceptions slowly changing around ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ + community, things like 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 won’t be needed. But I  believe that is going to put greater onus on all of us to not accept, and more importantly, call out racism and queerphobia. Are we as writers and a community willing to harbour that responsibility? Are YOU willing?