Shoot To Kill

The state premiers all say that John Howard didn’t include a shoot to kill clause in his initial presentation of his anti-terror laws that they signed off on.

Well of course he didn’t - he neither wants nor needs it.

It’s a classic diversionary tactic.

The Prime Minister added that section after the initial presentation, knowing it would cause the premiers, press and public to blow up and say they couldn’t possibly support it.

That neatly takes all the attention off all the other much more dangerous, anti-democratic and illiberal parts of his proposed so-called anti-terror laws. You know, the preventative detention, the control orders and all the other building blocks of a police state. The stuff he REALLY wants.

In due course Mr Howard will graciously ‘bow to the will of the people’ and the premiers, and take out the shoot-to-kill stuff – which he never really wanted in the first place, and, as he admits, doesn’t need anyway.

This fake ‘concession’ will leave him with all the really scary, dangerous and unnecessary powers to cow dissent and stifle free speech, which were what he wanted in the first place, totally intact and in no way watered down.

If we, the people, the press and the premiers are dumb enough to fall for this one, we deserve everything we get. If you thought it was bad when innocent refugees driven from their homelands by the Bush/Blair/Howard wars got locked up in Pacific concentration camps, wait till they start shoving Australian citizens into our own Guantanamo Bays.

Or do we think it’s just coincidence that all those so-called ‘detention centres’ have been emptied and mothballed, rather than demolished?

Hate speech and other animals

Edited transcript of part of my Rainbow Report broadcast Friday 21 Oct 2005

I want to say something about hate speech, vilification and other assorted curbs on free speech.

I’m beginning to think they do more harm than good.

If you stop people from saying what they think in public, will it stop them saying, or thinking it? No – they will just go on saying, and thinking, and spreading those thoughts privately, out of sight.

And things that are underground have a habit of getting worse.

For example, before we had the so-called war on drugs, there were relatively few heroin addicts, and once they were registered with their local doctors, they were guaranteed a regular pure supply at a reasonable cost.

They had no reason to commit crimes to get enough money to feed their habit. They had no reason to sell heroin to others to feed their habit – though a few undoubtedly did, it was relatively easy to track and control, because almost all addicts were registered. Rogue doctors and users could be brought under control relatively quickly and easily.

Likewise there was little incentive for crooks to get involved in the trade, when their sources of supply were of lower quality and higher price. As a result, there wasn’t much of a heroin problem.

Then along comes the war on drugs, addicts can only get heroin substitutes from doctors, creating an instant market for the real thing, which crooks were happy to supply. And they didn’t need to worry too much about quality control.

Now the equation is reversed: addicts have every reason to steal, to become dealers themselves, anything to maintain their supply. In short, the cure is worse than the disease.

I suspect hate speech and vilification laws are the same.

Let the arguments of the bigots and hatemongers be heard, and countered, in public. Otherwise they will only be propagated in private spaces out of the public eye, in places where no counter-argument can be made. Susceptible people will hear only one side of the argument, not both.

Besides which, hate speech and vilification laws mean these people can complain they’re being victimised – and you know what – they’re right. They are being punished simply for speaking their minds. They may be deluded minds, but that’s no reason to silence them.

If a precedent is created that says certain thoughts are not permitted, certain things cannot be said, there is nothing to stop the same principle being applied when the political wind shifts to another quarter.

Hate speech and vilification laws have softened up the public to the point where they seem prepared to accept what was previously unnacceptable, for example, the current so-called anti-terror laws, without much of a murmur.

These laws will punish people for saying things that could be construed as encouraging or supporting terrorists. I say we should let people say those things if they want to – then we will know who they are. If they are forbidden from saying them, then they will be driven underground, where they will flourish out of sight.

After all, there have always been terrorists, just as there have always been junkies, and we’ve lived with that and coped with that for hundreds of years.

I think we have more to fear from the people who are pretending to safeguard us than we have from any so-called terrorist.

The Romans used to have a saying: who will guard the guardians? Meaning, if you give great power to a group of people, trusting them not to use it against you, how will you make sure they don’t?

It’s doubly troubling when the government department that is charged with, in effect, deciding what we can and can’t say and think, will be run by the man who built and ran what was effectively a network of offshore concentration camps for refugees whose face, according to the government, didn’t fit. The vast majority of whom, I may remind you, have since been found to be genuine refugees by any normal standard. Now the same man will be in charge of building and running what will effectively be an onshore police state.

Anti-hate speech laws are what started us down this slippery slope.

Taking a Break

I may have a little time to post the occasional story here over the summer months: Joy 94.9FM has informed me they want to ‘rest’ the Rainbow Report over the summer season, which means the last show will be on November 25.

The decision is mainly driven by the lack of a sponsor: Denholm Alcock have been terrific, supporting the show for six months, but they have decided to focus their efforts elsewhere, and no other sponsor has come forward.

In addition:

(Removed at the request of Joy management)

Critical error

Personally speaking, I’ll be glad of a break, and in fact was planning to take about a month out over Christmas and New Year. But three months is over-generous.

(Removed at the request of Joy management)

I believe it’s a critical error to take the show off-air for a whole three months at such an early stage in it’s life. The RR was initially a shock to many who tuned in expecting more of the bubbly and upbeat music show that Damian provides, but it has built and continues to build a loyal following. And not a few people to whom I’ve spoken are angry the show will be pulled just after the most successful membership drive ever, which netted more than 1300 new members, many of them pleased that Joy, via the RR, was finally delivering the sort of wide-ranging global community news and current affairs content that had been missing from the station.

So: if you know of a generous sponsor, if you'd like to volunteer to work on the program, if you'd like to express your thoughts on taking a break for thee months, email rainbowreport@joy.org.au . I'll pass everything on to the appropriate person at Joy

Thanks.

Persian Gay & Lesbian Organization - PGLO www.pglo1.org

Persian Gay & Lesbian Organization - PGLO www.pglo1.org
For up to date news of what's happeing in Iran.

Community Radio Membership Drive

It's that time of year again: Spring comes around and Joy Melbourne 94.9FM - Australia's first (and I think only) 24/7/365 radio station is having it's annual membership drive.

I'm particularly keen to sign you up as a member because I present my daily current affairs show, The Rainbow Report, there.

We're a community radio station, which means most everyone who works there is a volunteer. We do have a certain amount of commercial sponsorship, but we're limited as to how much we can earn through that (by law), so we rely mostly on listeners becoming members.

Most community radio stations sell subscriptions, but we sell memberships.

The difference is that members get to vote for the committee of management, and to volunteer to work at the station. Joy belongs to it's listeners.

You don't have to live in Melbourne to listen or be a member: we're streaming live on the web.

It costs A$40 a year for full membership, A$25 if you're eligible for a concession, A$20 if you're under 18.

So please, join up and help keep us on air.

Thanks.

Doug Pollard

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Hospital stops gay man giving blood

John Hooper in Rome
Monday September 5, 2005
The Guardian

Italy's health minister has condemned a decision by one of the country's biggest hospitals to stop a gay man giving blood.
A 39-year-old writer was turned away from the Policlinico hospital in Milan after telling staff he was gay. Paolo Pedote said he had been informed that, although Italian law allowed him to give blood, it was "internal policy" not to accept gay male donors.

The health minister, Francesco Storace of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, called the decision "very serious and unacceptable". Announcing an inquiry, he said: "We intend to determine the administrative responsibility. But what has happened could also be grounds for a criminal investigation."


The director of the Policlinico's transfusion centre said he stood by his staff's decision. Paolo Rebulla said his department had "a fundamental duty to protect patients who receive blood". It was ready to take responsibility for its decisions which were based on "strongly prudential criteria".
In an interview with the Milan-based daily Corriere della Sera, Professor Rebulla said the hospital's policy was to exclude adult males who had had sex with other men in the previous five years. He said "authoritative studies and a broad medical literature" showed they were more likely to be HIV-positive.

Prof Rebulla added: "In the case presently under discussion, there are [also] certain factors relating to the risk of the partner."

He said tests carried out on donated blood had "margins of error, albeit very small".

Until 2001, prospective donors in Italy were obliged to make a declaration on their "non homosexuality".

A law introduced 10 years earlier had banned outright the giving of blood by anyone who had had "man to man sexual relations".

But the rules were changed under a centre-left government to apply to high-risk behaviour rather than categories of people. Anyone who acknowledges having had more than three partners in the last 12 months is now excluded.

However, Prof Rebulla said the law continued to give doctors room for discretion.

Gay rights groups said at the weekend that they had had several reports from other parts of Italy of hospitals implementing policies similar to the one adopted in Milan.

The Arcigay association said: "The incident which took place at the Policlinico is merely the tip of an iceberg that rarely surfaces in the press. It is a widely spread phenomenon because of the homophobia of many health workers."

A centre-left MP said he had tabled a question for the health minister seeking assurances that the law would be applied in such a way as to "allow donors to fulfil their duty and obligations without any form of discrimination".

But Mr Storace's predecessor, Girolamo Sirchia, deplored the controversy saying "the only priority for doctors is the care of the sick".

Homophobia Survey

Everyone is getting very steamed up over the survey that has revealed that two thirds of Australians no longer think homosexuality is immoral - because they're focusing on the one third we still have to win over. Two thirds looks pretty good to me - one third still means there's a long way to go. But........

Rodney Croome has been expressing puzzlement at the news that parts of Tassie are among that recalcitrant one third, yet reporters on the ground can't find anyone to say anything bad about us.

It's no great mystery: it's what's called the limit of tolerance. There's no contradiction. On the one hand, they can - - logically - see that it's wrong to discriminate or to encourage discrimination. So they'll put up with us being around - but that doesn't mean they like us. In fact, in their heart of hearts, they don't. They'll tolerate us the way I tolerate the neighbour's incessantly barking dog, which isn't to say I wouldn't happily go after it with a Kalashnikov if I had one and thought I could get away with it.

That's how 'tolerant' people think of us.

It's a major mistake we and they have made: we thought tolerance was enough, but by itself, it's not. It's only a way station, a truce, some common ground we can occupy while we cautiously get to know each other and take the first steps on the truly hard road - the road to ACCEPTANCE.

That's a very different beast, and it can't be legislated. It's something every one of us has to work for every day in our personal lives, at home, at school, at work, shopping, playing sport . . . as out gay people. Tolerance was relatively easy: we just stayed more or less the same, and asked them to change to meet us. Acceptance means we as individuals and a community have to change, too, to meet each other in the middle.

They tolerate us because they know that BEING gay can't be changed: but if you listen carefully to what they say, what they DON'T like is this thing called 'the gay lifestyle'. Sex-on-site venues, so-called 'dance parties' - actually thinly disguised orgies - casual sex in public toilets, drug use . . . . . need I go on? These are things we as a community have to tackle and probably have to grow out of to achieve acceptance.

Otherwise we can settle for being being tolerated - just - and the Kalashnikov will be waiting under the bed for us. Just in case.

Matthew Shepard Online Resources - Religious Right Hate Speech - Nazi Propagandavs. Religious Right Anti-gay Rhetoric

Well what a surprise_ judge for yourselves, but it looks to me like the New Christians are just another species of Old Nazi.

The Seattle Times: Local News: Born gay? How biology may drive orientation

Being gay is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ – being religious is.

I’m getting a little tired of people arguing over whether we’re born gay, or whether it’s a lifestyle choice that can be changed with the judicious application of just the right amount of brainwashing and electric current. The science is in, and it’s as plain as a pikestaff – for those who want to see –being gay is just part of the normal spectrum of human variation, like green eyes or blonde hair.

The people who steadfastly refuse to see this have all made what really IS a lifestyle choice – to be religious. And even there, the dam is melting. The Revd. Smid of Love in Action in Memphis, the man who locks up gay teenagers to brainwash them with anti-gay guilt, (for a suitably large fee, of course) admits that some people are born gay, and you can’t change them.

This new orthodoxy says you were born that way, but you don’t have to act on your ‘impulses’. You can suppress them, even to the point of being able to function sexually with a woman, marry, and have children. The Rev’d Smid even admits to being one such man himself. Hallalujah!

But Smid says his faith compels him to believe that if he acts on his ‘impulses’, then he’ll never get to heaven and he’ll never rise again at the second coming. Instead he’ll die forever. Better to commit suicide while still pure, he tells his young charges, than give up the struggle and ‘relapse’ into a ‘gay lifestyle’.

What is faith? The irrational belief that something is so, when there is either no supporting evidence, or when what testable evidence there is, all points to the opposite.

So the question is not – did I choose to be gay, or was I born that way?

The real question is – did the Revd Smid choose to be Christian? Of course he did. Religion is not genetic – it is learned. Why does he choose to think in this manifestly dysfunctional manner, live in this fantasy world that is damaging him and dangerous to those he comes into contact with, when there are very fine doctors and therapies that could cure him? And why do we permit it?

I didn’t choose to be gay: but the Revd Smid did choose to be religious, did choose to be Christian, did choose this particularly virulent strain of Christianity, and did choose to foist it on others for his personal profit. But with love and care and appropriate therapy he could be cured. He might feel the occasional irrational urge to pray, but it could be fought down and controlled, with appropriate help. Like a male prostitute who wants to come off the game, he could be taught a trade and become a useful member of society.

Gays and lesbians don’t choose to be what they are – but Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Pagans, Wiccans DID choose their lifestyle. They chose to live this way. And they could - and should – be helped to choose to change.

A Gay American Teen Reveals the Hell Some Can be Put Through by Parents and Others

Ugh! What sickos these self-styled Christians can be, locking up teenagers to brainwash them!

As a sample of the kind of thing they tell these kids:

I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery.
- John Smid, who runs the Love in Action programme in Memphis that claims to "cure" gays