Clemency Appeal

If you feel it is appropriate, please click on the link below, and please e-mail the authorities in Singapore. I have included the e-mail addresses, subject line, and text below, so that it is a simple matter of copying, pasting, and sending.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/action_centre/
singapore_urge_authorities_to_stop_the_execution_of_van_tuong_nguyen

E-mail addresses -
>
lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg; jayakumar_s@mfa.gov.sg; agc@agc.gov.sg; singapore_hc@bigpond.com
>
Subject line - Van Tuong Nguyen
>
Body of e-mail -
>
Dear Prime Minister, Minister, Attorney General, Your Excellency
>
I am appealing to your Cabinet to urgently reconsider granting clemency to Australian man Van Tuong Nguyen who will otherwise be executed for drug trafficking.
>
I believe the death penalty is the most cruel and inhumane punishment and is an appalling abuse of the most fundamental human right - the right to life. Van Tuong Nguyen is a young man with no prior criminal conviction who does not deserve to pay the ultimate price for this mistake.
>
I understand under Singapore's Constitution, clemency can be granted in rare circumstances and that Van Tuong Nguyen's case fits the criteria - I believe he has always shown remorse, confessed at the earliest opportunity and cooperated fully with the Singaporean authorities and the Australian Federal Police.
>
I urge your government to show compassion and grant clemency to this young man.
>
> Yours sincerely

Look Below the Waterline

A couple of offhand remarks lately have made me realise how little people know about what goes on behind the scenes on a program like the Rainbow Report.

One – a seasoned broadcaster – said, ‘People don’t realise how much work you put in – it’s only half an hour on air but two hours preparation.’

Another – a listener and community activist, referred to the quantity and quality of information ‘you provide on the Rainbow Report so effortlessly.’

Stifling my hollow laughter, I said to the latter, I may glide across the airwaves like a swan, but if you look below the water you will see that I’m paddling like fury.

An average day goes something like this:

8am latest. Fire up the computer. Read through all the emails received overnight and reply to any that need a response. Look at all the news alerts I receive from various wire services re: news stories of possible gay interest. Download any interesting stuff I think I might want to use, or might be useful for reference.

9am. Start trawling through my ten favourite gay news service and radio websites for possible stories. Click on any interesting links and download any possible stories and soundbites. Then visit a selection of gay and lesbian websites around the world: my list of favourites contains 9 Australian, 9 European, 6 Asian, 4 African, 4 Middle Eastern, and the grand-daddy of them all, 16 in the USA. That’s 58 websites – not counting the ones where I click through to others to find the story – maybe another 20.

Also during this time: from the diary of upcoming events, requests for interviews, local knowledge, whatever, decide who I’d like on the show today/soon and place calls, send emails, sms’s. Mostly I get voicemail and answering services.

11am. Review what I’ve collected. Decide what fits in the Roundup, what merits a longer piece, what goes on The Spike. Some of them may not be useful directly, but there may be a local angle. For the last couple of days there have been a series of reports from the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network documenting bullying in US schools on a state by state basis – who should I call locally for comment and comparison with the local situation. Place more calls, emails, sms’s. Write, record and produce Roundup – two versions, one for tonight, one for tomorrows repeat.

12am. Lunch. If no-one’s called back, start to panic. Draft outline script and running order for tonight’s show. Do some chores about the house. Answer phone calls, set up interviews – most people call back during their lunch hour.

1pm. Time out – Divert the phone to the answering machine. Soak in a bath. Read the papers.

2pm. Set off for Joy

2.45 – 3.00 Arrive Joy. Fire up studio 2 and start doing phone interviews. If I have a live guest, that’s only one pre-record. If not, that’s two. The actual interview aired may only be 5 or 6 minutes, but that’s up to half an hours work – getting them online, pre-interview chat, often to relax their nerves, the interview itself, which, unedited, is probably 8-10 minutes long, then wind down, thank them. Sometimes do three or more interviews to get ‘stock’ for future show. Try to have more than I actually need, especially if live guests are scheduled that night – you never know if they’ll show, and as a no-music show, I don’t have the luxury of throwing to a track in an emergency.

4pm. Move to production booth. Finalise the two editions of the Roundup and upload to MD. Edit the pre-records and upload to MD. Any downloaded overseas radio material or contributor material – review, edit, revoice segments where necessary. Pre-record any of my own comment pieces.

5pm. Off to the newsdesk. Finalise running sheet, with timings. Realise I have a couple of gaps. Write the show script with all the linking material. If I have live guests, pre-phone to confirm they’re still available, have right phone number. If not, decide what I’m going to replace them with. Try for another live guest, hope I have a usable pre-record, or plan to pad.

5.45. The script is locked, no matter what. Now open up newswire service and decide what stories I want for the evening news bulletin. Download, craft bulletin script, pre-read bulletin and show script. Correct where necessary. Give program support any info people might ring in for, or warn them if program is likely to be controversial. Brief panel operator.

6.15 – if I’m lucky. Toilet break and cup of tea. Deep breathing

6.30 SHOWTIME!!

The Rainbow Report, Tim Newton and HIV

Text of Tuesday broadcast............

Monday night I aired a piece by Tim Newton in the course of which he said: that 'we all know how to avoid HIV infection, it's been drummed into everyone, and especially the gay community, and there can be very few excuses, and therefore little sympathy, for those who become infected from having unsafe sex.'

That sentence upset a lot of people, and after the show I received a number of responses. Unfortunately they didn’t arrive in time to air during the show, but given the strength of feeling on the issue, here’s a selection.

Listener Reaction

The piece on HIV by Tim Newton was absolutely appalling! You have lost me as a Joy member and a listener. You should be ashamed of yourself

Doug’s piece on HIV with Tim left me shell shocked – his opinion is pathetic and disgusting

Many of my friends are positive, I am not, saying they deserve it is uncalled for, we’d appreciate not hearing those comments

I was disgusted with Time Newton. His views on HIV are outrageous. No matter how much care you take in life shit can happen. Why is this unsympathetic person allowed to voice this crap on Joy.

My Response

I've listened again to Tim’s piece, and run it past several other people, and though his view could be considered harsh, I think he's been misunderstood. The segment that caused the offence went as follows:

He said: 'we all know how to avoid HIV infection, it's been drummed into everyone, especially the gay community, and there can be very few excuses, and therefore little sympathy, for those who become infected from having unsafe sex.'

He did not say that HIV positive people deserve it. He did not say that people who, despite taking care, become infected. He said people who nowadays, despite all the available education and information, have unsafe sex – in other words, barebackers, people who choose not to take care - have VERY FEW excuses, not none; LITTLE sympathy, not none.

Imagine I’m 20 years old. I’ve drunk a few stubbies and I’m driving my mate home in the ute. He doesn’t fasten his seat belt and I don’t insist. I drive too fast, wrap the ute round a pole, and wake up paralysed from the neck down. My mate is dead.

We’ve both seen a million commercials about not drinking and driving. And another million about fastening seat belts. Yet now I’m in a wheelchair and my best mates dead, because of the choices we made.

Do I have any excuses? Not many. Do I deserve sympathy? Maybe some. Do I WANT sympathy? Or do I want to face up to my responsibilities and do what I can – however inadequate – to try to make amends?

I’m the creator and producer of this program as well as it’s presenter, and I took the decision to air Tim’s piece. I’m sorry that it has hurt and offended some people. Clearly Tim could have worded his comments more precisely. But I’m not sorry I put the piece to air.

The show is called the Rainbow Report because the rainbow represents diversity – and that includes diversity of opinion. I’m not in the business in silencing opinions that you or I might not agree with, or that some might find offensive.

There are people who would prefer that certain topics not be aired, that certain opinions not be expressed, that debate be stifled.

I’m not one of them. I believe in free speech. I don’t believe in censorship. I’m not Phillip Ruddock, or John Howard.

I’m Doug Pollard, and you’re listening to the Rainbow Report.

AND TIM’S OWN RESPONSE

It seems that a lot of you have reacted strongly to comments of mine aired on the Rainbow Report last Monday. Firstly, I would like to thank Doug for making sure my exact words were replayed and fully understood.

Secondly I would like to apologise to those that either misheard or misunderstood what I said. My comments were not meant to harm or vilify those living with HIV or AIDS, indeed I have many friends in this situation who I love and cherish, one an ex-partner My comments were directed at those who, with full knowledge of the consequences, knowingly expose themselves to HIV by partaking in unsafe sexual practices.

Finally, the comments are an opinion, an alternative opinion, and a personal opinion. The opportunity to air them is a responsibility I take very seriously. They are not gratuitous, they are well considered. I understand that many of the subjects we broach on the Rainbow Report are sensitive but that is no reason not to share a view and discuss them. The Rainbow Report is a voice for the gay community, the entire community. I heed all the comments, good and bad, and I'm proud that, as a member of this station, I'm able to participate in free speech along with the rest of you.

Now it may be that I'm kicked off for airing this opinion and, of course, I take full responsibility for what I said.

I'm Tim Newton for the Rainbow Report.

THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW

an email from a listener

Hi Doug,
 
I am a HIV+ man and I believe Tim Newton’s comments with respect to undeserved sympathy for HIV+ people are disturbingly misleading and without merit, however, they do deserve airing because many gay men are unaware that this level of subliminal, and sometimes outright, disaffection exists comfortably within our own community.

Whilst I am not aware of where Mr Newton’s authority lies in this matter, I am aware that the “safe sex” campaign he refers to is not fool proof. Firstly contemporary terminology refers to a “safer sex” campaign not a “safe sex” campaign. Secondly I have met gay men who are still unaware of what is risky and what is not, despite all the so called education. For example some gay men actually believe kissing a positive person is a risk or using condoms completely eliminates the risk of contracting HIV.

The second point I would like to make is that HIV+ people do not want or need sympathy. Sympathy that is not financial will not result in anyone creating any practical solutions that assist positive people or lead to finding a cure.

Telling people who contract HIV that they only have themselves to blame is wastefully emotive and the same logic could be used against smokers who contract smoking related diseases, drinkers who contract drinking related diseases, recreational drug users who develop problems or die and eaters who contract diet related conditions. I wonder if Mr Newton has even one of these habits or a similarly bad but human habit?

The question we need to ask ourselves is: do we wish to live in Mr Newton’s ‘dog eat dog’ country, or world for that matter? Mr Newton is one step away from condoning discrimination against HIV+ people and again discrimination serves no useful purpose in the battle against AIDS. I recommend Mr Newton go to the “God Hates Fags” website so he can see for himself that there is already enough useless rhetoric concerning HIV/AIDS in the world today.
 
Thank you Doug for airing these comments. It is important to expose people’s feelings about all of the issues that affect us in this day and age so that we can, as individuals, make truly informed decisions.
 
Andrew
Hawthorn East

Last Two Weeks

I'm now in pre-holiday mode - the Rainbow Report comes to an end on November 25 - that's only two weeks away. Hopefully I'll be back on air in February, and in the meantime we need to work out what we have learned from the experience.

What we need to make life easier:

A producer - someone to work behind the scenes researching and suggesting stories, telephoning potential interviewees etc.

A co-presenter - love doing the Friday shows with Cath Pope!

Regular specialist contributors.

A sponsor!!!!!!!

Issues for debate - got any ideas?

Time for show - if 6.30 no longer possible, when? If RR stays daily, suggestions so far have included 12 noon, 7pm, 8pm

Day - if we switch to weekly or bi-weekly, which day/days? Suggestions so far include Monday and Friday (Start/Stop the Week), Wed/Sat.

Frequency - do we stay with daily or shift to weekly, bi-weekly?

Length - if RR is not on air every day, do we switch to one or two hour format?

Content - depends on the above - but what would you like more of? Live studio discussions? Ability to phone-in and participate? If longer but less frequent - include music? What kind?

What is wrong with people who take drugs?

Last night on the Rainbow Report (11.11.2005) I looked at the issue of dance parties and the associated drug culture, with the help of Tim Newton and Adam Pickvance.

Tim asked the question - what is wrong with these people who take these drugs?

I don't have a complete answer - who does - but I put in my two cents worth.

This is what I said:

In 1967 I was 17 yrs old, still in school, fairly certain I was gay and desperate not to be. I didn’t know anyone else who was. Everything I could find on the subject was relentlessly negative, full of words like ‘sick’, ‘abnormal’ and ‘unnatural’. When the issue made the papers, it was stories of blackmail and murders.

And there was a lot about homosexuality in the papers in 1967, because that was the year the law finally changed in Britain. Well, I thought, at least I won’t face the prospect of going to jail if I do give in to my ‘unnatural’ urges and have sex with another man.

Things have changed a bit since then – but not as much as we’d like to think. There are still plenty of people who like to label us abnormal and unnatural and sick. Now there are a lot more people and organizations to prove the opposite. There are books, television programs, even a radio station, if you’re lucky enough to live in Melbourne. But too many kids are still brought up to think there’s something wrong with them, that their natural desires are bad, sinful, sick – take your pick.

So after you’ve discounted the usual reasons you drink too much and experiment with drugs when you’re young - such as, you want to find out what it’s like, and you don’t want to take someone else’s word for it – lots of us gay men do it because it seems to make it easier to do what you really want to do, which is to make a physical, sexual and emotional connection with someone else.

I say seems, because I’ve been there and done that. When I got to uni in 1968 I spent a lot of time trying not to be gay, not to give in to my ‘unnatural’ desires, and when I couldn’t do that any more, I got drunk and got laid. Or I got stoned and laid. Or dropped acid and got laid. Friends said to me, look, all you’re doing is self-medicating, and making things worse: what you really need is to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist fed me valium, and then I didn’t feel like getting laid at all. Not much of a solution, eh? And still gay.

A study this year of gay men coming off crystal meth in New York discovered that most of them had been doing just what I used to do: using drugs to overcome their own self-doubt, fear and hate. They couldn’t reach out and make that connection they desperately wanted without some chemical help, because they’d all been taught, throughout their childhoods, that being gay was bad. Seems like nothing much has changed for many people, in thirty years.

I was lucky, I pulled myself together and got out of all that. But before I started losing friends to AIDS, I’d already lost many to the bottle, barbiturates, the despairing razor blade across the wrists or the rope thrown over a tree branch. What saved me was getting involved in fighting for gay rights with the Gay Liberation Front, helping to start Britains first gay newspaper, Gay News.

Instead of blaming myself for the way I felt about being gay, I now put the blame where it properly belongs, on all the bigots and fools who want me to think I’m somehow less than human, undeserving of equality and respect, because I’m gay. Today of all days it seems appropriate to say, maintain the rage.

The battle against party drugs and drug-fuelled nights on the town, for many gay men, won’t be won by society coming down ever more heavily on the drug users themselves. It’ll be over when gays and lesbians are fully accepted – not tolerated but accepted – members of society. Till then there will always be those who think they need drugs to help them feel good about themselves – our job is to understand and help them through, keep them alive, not condemn them.

Joy AGM

Thank goodness for passion

An unexpectedly moving occasion at an initially tepid Joy AGM last night: amidst the usual grey pre-programmed for-God’s-sake-be-careful-and-stick-to-the-script speeches by officials and management, the vote-by-rote shows of hands, the uncontested elections (and what does that say about us, I wonder), relief came in the form of the inevitable witty, wise and erudite speech by Adddam Stobbbs (I’ve thrown in some extra consonants, to be on the safe side), a funny fake news broadcast by Tim Lennox, and some genuine passion.

Chris Furneax, who looks after membership, moved himself – and most of the rest of us – to tears with his speech, when he declared that now, at Joy, he’s found the best years of his life. And Paul Anthony, who only joined us a year ago, and at the other end of the age spectrum, also brought tears to all eyes as he struggled through his very emotional declaration that Joy had given him purpose, too. Thanks guys, that’s why we do it, too.

The Hub

Jeff Hood, the new president, summed it all up well, when he said Joy was at the hub of the Melbourne gay community. He stepped out from the podium and asked us to look at him, hardly the stereotype of a gay man, a misfit and uncomfortable in what most people think of as the gay community – the pubs and clubs.

He reminded us, that’s only part of the gay community: it consists of the ‘scene’, sure, but also the people in community organizations, sports clubs, those who don’t belong to any organization . . . . . the list goes on. Joy is unique because it’s a radio station, and radio goes where nothing else can. It’s over the PA in stores, on the phone systems when you’re put on hold, in cars, in the most private of spaces: it sits at the hub of gay Melbourne. It’s the glue that connects it all together, the crossroads, nexus, hub, whatever you want to call it, where all the diverse parts of our world come together.

Joy’s ethos transcends that of the ‘community: it refuses to be PC or peddle the tired jargon of activism, while giving activism time and space; it does not require or impose the narrow superficial standards of the scene, but acknowledges the place of fun and celebration in our culture; it is the polar opposite of exclusive, a place where gay men and women of all types work together mostly in harmony; it acknowledges that if diversity is to mean anything, then everyone has a right to disagree and voice that disagreement, while respecting the right of everyone else to do likewise; and finally, because of all the foregoing, it is at one and the same time the most frustrating and the most fulfilling place to be.

Thunderbirds are go!

The danger lies in any one view predominating. At present the station is spendidly schizophrenic: during the day it’s a gay bar or club; at 6.30 (7.00 again come December), the dance floor flips over like a scene from Thunderbirds to reveal the diverse groups and agendas that drive the community.

A tenuous continuity is maintained by having, for example, specialist shows about particular types of music on the evenings, threading entertainment content into the more serious hours. And there are similar threads of ‘serious’ content woven through the daytimes, usually in the form of ‘bite size’ interviews on politics, health etc.. Until December my show, The Rainbow Report, operates as a sort of hinge between the two: it’s a major change in tone from Drive to RR!! At present it seems jarring, coming after three hours of light and fluffy music and entertainment programming with no news – it would be less of a shock if the hourly news bulletins etc. had remained in place.

I’m becoming a little concerned that the undoubted improvement in daytime programming is starting to destroy this important connecting ‘threading’ – there’s more and more music, and fewer and fewer chat breaks. It’s all getting ironed out and becoming rather bland. The trade-off is moving perilously close to an unfair deal.
And, news is now less frequent overall than it should be – if you’re going to cut news bulletins down to around 3 minutes, then you have to have more of them, at least every hour through the day, with longer bulletins during breakfast, lunch and tea. That way the threads are retained.

Ah well – if there were no battles, there’d be no movement, no life. We must all continually shove each other out of our respective comfort zones – as Adddddam said, that’s where the creativity comes from.

I'm worried that we might be spending so much time and attention decorating Jeff Tracey's lounge, but are we forgetting the rescue machinery that's the purpose of the organisation?

Expatica's French news in English: French lesbians 'inundate' Belgian fertility clinics

Shortage of Belgian wankers

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.