**Note: This post was submitted as an article to the Sydney University magazine The Bull’s queer edition in August 2009**

Ah Spain! It’s full of flamenco, bull-fighters, and (my personal favourite) flamers! During my vacation I got to see them all, and none more loud and proud than the LGBTQ community of Spain and beyond when we rocked up to see the final parade and party for Barcelona Pride 2009.

Barcelona Pride week itself was spectacularly uneventful, though I did attend an LGBTQ tour of Barcelona the Friday before the parade, where I got to visit Spain’s first gay sex shop, Sestienda. I was also treated to an explanation of how Saint Sebastian was adopted as the saint for gay men to worship. I saw bookstores and plazas, discussed history and legislation, and got to see a lot of Barcelona in the process. With only eight people turning up for the tour, I was concerned that the parade and party scheduled for that Sunday would be a total flop.

I was wrong.

As I shuffled along a street listening to my iPod, thinking I was early for the celebrations, I was shocked to see a huge crowd ahead of me. Hurriedly putting away my headphones, I whipped out the camera lickety-split and began taking shots of all the floats.

Though in no way as large or long or hard (sorry couldn’t help myself!) as Sydney’s Mardi Gras, the parade had all the atmosphere it needed to kick everyone into party mode. The bears of Bearcelona were out in force throughout the night, with free rainbow and pink fans being thrown from floats to deal with the heat and humidity of the Spanish summer whilst also carrying important messages about condom use… and gay spa ads. Condoms in rainbow packets fell from the sky, exciting some and injuring many, as men and women in not much more than underwear – and sometimes less – threw handfuls from atop the bus floats.

Most exciting was the representation of other cultures, mainly Latin American, who came to represent their countries. Chilean and Colombian participants waved giant flags, representing their pride despite being often unseen and unheard in Latin America. Brazilian participants were also present, and the hiring of samba bands meant that those Brazilians were able to demonstrate their prowess. I admit, I found it incredibly difficult not to make a fool of myself by attempting to dance.

My only complaint is that there were not more women participating and that there was absolutely no representation or acknowledgement of bi- or pansexuality. Aside from one lesbian float, the women were usually tacked onto male-oriented floats or simply walking for charitable NGOs such as Amnesty International.

Following the parade was a giant free party, held in front of the palace and the famous magic fountain, which every weekend holds light shows at night. I will never forget the sensation of partying below and seeing the fountain alight with colour in front of the palace silhouette, with rainbow balloons, feathers, bubbles and sequins decorating the sky.

Nor will I forget the smiles on the faces of the passers-by who had no idea the event would be on. It seemed that every single person who came across the celebrations was invigorated by them. There were no protestors, no lousy smirks of “heh they’re gay”, and no homophobic groups lurking in the background – but it has taken a long time for Spain to get to this point.

Celebrating the achievements of Spanish queer activists is very important in a country which imprisoned an estimated 4000 homosexuals under dictator Francisco Franco, who ruled from 1939 to 1975. ‘Homosexual behaviour’ (as opposed to homosexual acts) were later outlawed in the vagrancy law reforms of 1954, calling homosexuality one of “the lowest levels of morality” and a “social danger”.

Many homosexuals (almost always men) were sent to labor camps and in later years to mental institutions, where they were subjected to ‘reparative therapies’ such as electric shock, a method still advocated by some extremist social conservatives in the western world. It wasn’t until the death of Franco in 1975 that homosexuality was decriminalised and the clandestine gay rights groups of the 60s could become public. Throughout the 1980s, lesbian groups finally began to emerge. These groups tended to remain separate from the male-run gay rights groups as attempts at unification were often met with conflict.

It wasn’t until the 1990s that queer rights really regained its focus in Spain. This was due to the amalgamation and creation of new LGBTQ groups with a united goal: the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Spain. The tides of public opinion were turning in their favour as the previously-Catholic country rebelled against old Francoist modes of thought, especially in regards to his regulation and restriction of women, sex and sexuality.

In 2004 the change was there for all to see, with the publication of a poll showing that 66% of Spaniards supported same-sex marriage. With that being an election year the socialist party (PSOE) and its leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero made same-sex marriage a core election promise. He was elected with a clear majority and all discriminatory legislation against queer individuals was removed in 2005. The legislation allowed same-sex couples not only the right to marry, but also to adopt. The legislation was heavily protested and lobbied against by the Catholic Church and its followers, however the government’s dedication to secularism meant their calls to “save the family” went heard but unheeded.

Responding to these complaints, Zapatero said: “There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage.”

All in all, Spain is reforming itself away from the Francoist era with a renewed emphasis on secularism. This has led to reforms not only in terms of queer rights, but also in regards to women’s rights, the teaching of religion in schools and the funding of religious institutions by the Spanish Government. These changes are important not only for the Spain of tomorrow, but also in acknowledging the errors of the past in allowing just one interpretation of just one religion to rule as law in the personal lives of Spaniards.

As anybody who has read this blog will know, I’m not one for posts with not a lot of research and documents backing it up. However, the following issue is very close to my heart, as I have a friend who has experienced something very similar. We’ll call her Caitlin, for the purposes of this post.

The following is a reaction to a Feministing post on comments made by Dennis Prager about how a wife should have sex with her husband even though she doesn’t feel like it. Or to quote the man himself:

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

…

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife’s refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body

This is just disgusting.  “Give her body to him” and “gives her his body”, because sex is a commodity, right? To be given and taken and sold and traded and bought.

So many good points were made by commenters on the Feministing blog. But rather than to point out how this kind of attitude implicitly encourages marital rape (i.e. a wife should never refuse sex, but should rather lie down and take it even if she doesn’t want it), I will instead detail Caitlin’s experience of marital abuse, which she has kindly shared and agreed to let me recount, to demonstrate why these attitudes are the beginning of a rape mentality.

Caitlin met her ex, Justin, when she was 17. At the age of 18 they were married and they moved in together. At first their sex life was very active, but as time wore on the romance disappeared and they had sex less often, “about 3 or 4 times a week”, she said. This, in her mind, was just a natural progression of the relationship. However, Justin was not nearly as realistic about it, and couldn’t understand why she had stopped having constant sexual relations with him. He began to talk about how sex is a sign of affection to him (isn’t it to all of us?) and about how when she doesn’t have sex with him, that shows that she doesn’t love him. This, of course, led Caitlin to worry and she started to have sex with him more regularly, however she would always lie underneath, was obviously not into it, and really didn’t want to be having it. She tried not to say ‘no’, of course, because she knew this would just make him angry and he would start blaming her for his own self-esteem problems, basically saying that she was breaking down the relationship and that because they’d had sex before, that meant that she ‘owed’ it to him regularly.

Caitlin then says that “sex became like a chore”, because she saw it as something she had to do on a regular basis as part of being in a relationship with him; kind of like taking out the trash or doing the washing. She was emotionless about it and did it begrudgingly (as you do with most chores!) and so then Justin would get even more angry, saying that she should be active and get on top and be into it. So now the chore became even more difficult, required more energy and time, and Caitlin did it with even more disdain than before. Justin had turned sex from being something they both enjoyed together, to something which Caitlin ‘owed’ him, could not realistically say no to, and which essentially deleted all of her sexual desire. She couldn’t enjoy or yearn for sex anymore. Naturally, she only very rarely had an orgasm. Nevertheless, “he would insist I cum sometimes, and would get mad if I didn’t do it quickly”.

Eventually, with a lot of difficulty, a lot of pain, and a lot of angry phone calls, Caitlin left him after being married for almost two years.

“Why didn’t she leave sooner?” You might ask. Well, because Justin had basically manipulated her into thinking that her lack of enthusiasm for sex was her own fault, that she was ruining the relationship, and that by not having sex she was hurting him emotionally. He made her believe that it was she who had the psychological issues, not him. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if he hadn’t put pressure on her in the first place to have sex more than she wanted or was comfortable with, the relationship could have lasted a lot longer than it did. She loved him, a lot, she felt all connections with him, including sexual, until he started putting pressure on her to have it, until he told her it was her duty.

I was going to end the post there, but the final paragraph of Caitlin’s email to me was particularly moving:

“I always saw myself as someone with a strong libido. I really, truly enjoyed sex. I wasn’t nervous or hesitant about any uncontroversial sexual acts, and was actually proud of my own ability. After Justin and I broke up, though, I suddenly found myself having to date people completely different from him to enjoy it. It took a long time for my libido to come back. Justin used to make ‘deals’ with me about when and how often I should give him blowjobs, since having sex with a passive head was more fun for him than sex with a passive person. If a guy, even a boyfriend who I’ve been dating for a while, asks me to give him a blowjob (as I might ask him to go down on me) I freeze up and I become turned off, instantly. I can’t do it. I honestly feel like crying whenever I think of how I used to have to give Justin a blowjob every Saturday. It wasn’t negotiable, I couldn’t say no or else a fight would start.. I look back and I can now see how I was abused, tormented, I might even use the term rape. I couldn’t say no, but at the same time he knew I wasn’t consenting.”

So let’s look at Prager’s comments again now, shall we, after knowing that.

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

Can any of you say that Caitlin didn’t love Justin, to stay with him that long despite being so abused? Can any of you truly say that Caitlin, who did “rethink” refusing sex with Justin, did the right thing by ignoring mood and desire and consent and effectively ruining sex for herself?

 I didn’t think so.

A star-studded cast answer the tough questions regarding Proposition 8, which was passed in California during this year’s US elections.

Proposition 8 reads as follows: ”Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

This sentence not only disallows future marriages for gay and lesbian couples, but essentially annuls those marriages which took place in the months before Prop 8 was passed.

If you don’t already know about the proposition, some great posts about the topic and its controversies can be found at the following links: 

• The Mormon (Church of Latter Day Saints) involvement in getting the proposition passed
• The legal basis for overturning the proposition in the suit being filed 
• Fact vs. Fiction from the No on 8 campaign, addressing the lies told to voters from the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign
• A summary of the claim that African Americans and other minorities were to blame for Prop 8 passing

To see what happened after Prop 8 passed, see this post on Feministing. Basically the LGBTQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer) community mobilised and unified in protests across the nation. I have a feeling that Prop 8 might have actually strengthened determination for equal rights rather than hampered it.

Ah the penguin. Man’s best friend. Well, not really, but we all love a good penguin. It waddles, it flaps, it does that cute thing where it shuffles the egg under that random flap of skin, they fly and holiday in South America. Yes, there’s nothing quite like a good penguin. But alas, there are some out there who want to ruin the innocence of our beloved penguins, and use them for a political agenda. I refer of course to none other than the Christian right. 

In 2006, the film March of the Penguins was released. It was a great documentary about penguins and their migration patterns in relation to chick-rearing and mating behaviour. Anybody would love the film for its cinematography and interesting content, if not for the fact that the awesome voice of Morgan Freeman narrating. Nevertheless, some members of the Christian right decided a point needed to be made, that penguins are not just cute, but moral. Yes, penguins are apparently the epitome of morality.

However, a recent story came to my attention which I think might change the minds of some Christians who spoke too soon and didn’t do their research before they made these claims. In fact, it is my hypothesis that those same Christians who claimed penguins = morality, must now admit that homosexuality = morality. If not, I fear they risk appearing like hypocrites. Which isn’t usually an issue for them, but hopefully will be when they discover this penguiny truth.

PENGUINS ARE GAY

Yes, that’s right. Gay penguins are apparently settling in with each other in a wide range of international zoos. This story from the UK’s Telegraph:

“Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples”

A couple of gay penguins are attempting to steal eggs from straight birds in an effort to become “fathers”, it has been reported. The two penguins have started placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs, in a bid to hide their theft.

“One of the responsibilities of being a male adult is looking after the eggs. Despite this being a biological impossibility for this couple, the natural desire is still there,” a keeper told the Austrian Times newspaper.

Wow, so males of a species might have a natural desire for children even if they aren’t able to procreate with their chosen mate? Who’d have thunk it?! The story goes on to look at some other examples, including one where gay penguins were coerced into “turning straight”:

A German zoo provoked outrage from gay lobby groups after attempting to mate a group of gay male penguins with Swedish female birds who were flown in especially to seduce them. But the project was abandoned after the males refused to be “turned”, showing no interest in their would-be mates. In 2002 a couple of penguins at a New York zoo who had been together for eight years were “outed” when keepers noticed that they were both males.

So wait, being gay might be something natural for them? And maybe being straight isn’t just a “different lifestyle choice” for them? Surely there are no other examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, right? Well in fact gay activity has been seen in swans, seagulls, elephants, giraffes, dolphins, lions, sheep, hyenas, dragonflies, and more. But let’s go back to the penguins. Since penguins are moral creatures according to Christians, and penguins can be gay, then being gay must be moral. Penguin society = moral Some penguins = gay and part of penguin society Gay penguins = moral Now obviously once this post is read by those who hailed March of the Penguins as the second coming, they’ll realise that being gay is A-OK, and all the bigotry will disappear… right?     ..Right?

This story from ABC News and Sydney Morning Herald articles. First ABC News:

No-one in immigration detention should be held for longer than 12 months unless they pose a significant risk to the community, a parliamentary committee has recommended. The limit on detention is one of 18 recommendations made to the
Federal Government by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration today in its
report, Immigration Detention in Australia: A New Beginning.
…
The report recommends that the Immigration Department make public what the criteria is for deciding that a detainee poses an “unacceptable risk” to the community. It also says health checks should be completed within five days and if the
Department of Immigration can not establish a person’s identity or a security
assessment is incomplete within 90 days that a procedure should be developed
where they can be released from detention under certain conditions such as
strict reporting requirements. The report recommends that a person detained for
longer than 12 months have access to judicial review and those being held be
no longer charged for their detention.

First of all: they were charged for their detention? OUCH. Like it’s not bad enough that you’ve been persecuted in your home country, you then are locked up in conditions which have been compared to high-security prisons. After I dug around a little, I found a Crikey article which talks about this very issue, claiming that 18 months’ detention came to a cost of AU$160,000 for asylum seeker Kasian Wililo, who at the time of receiving the bill was already a NSW resident living with his wife and children and holding a full-time job.

Here’s a slice of ridiculous pie for you:

Mr Wililo is not alone. As of the 30 June 2008, there were 386 persons with
active detention debts amounting to $7,705,576, according to Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) spokesperson Sandi Logan.

Any former detainee not granted a Permanent Protection Visa or
Humanitarian Visa is billed for their time in detention, and any
costs associated with their subsequent deportation.

According to Logan, “… the department has a standardised cost charged per day for
detention across all mainland facilities. $125.40 a day is now the standardised
rate charged across all mainland centres. The daily maintenance amount is
never more than the actual cost of detention incurred by the
Commonwealth.”

So Wililo was being charged the equivalent of a low-to-medium-range Sydney hotel rate in order to be treated like a criminal? Apparently so.

If you’re going to charge them the price of a hotel, treat them like they’re in a hotel. There’s no reason to assume that any asylum seekers are bad people aside from racist presumptions and prejudices. If we follow the judicial model, these people are innocent. They have not committed offenses apart from being ‘unauthorised’, which is not exactly surprising given that they’re refugees, they are obviously not going to go through a paper-trail process which is traceable back to them and which may take years to execute.

Knowing that, we should be happy that these recommendations have been made in the report, right? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, it’s a great step forward in ensuring that the atrocities of detention centres prevalent during the Howard years are not repeated, particularly in regards to children in detention and long terms while awaiting trial. Nevertheless, these changes are not nearly enough.

One of the issues which continues to irk me is that of deportation of asylum seekers whose applications are denied. A recent case is that of Muhammed Hussain, an Afghan man who was rejected under Howard’s “Pacific Solution” and was returned to Afghanistan accordingly:

[He] was thrown down a well by gunmen, believed to be the Taliban. Then in
front of onlookers including members of his family, the killers threw a hand
grenade down the well and he was decapitated…Accounts of the killing were
given to Phil Glendenning, director of the Edmund Rice Centre, this week. He
told the Herald he has verified the events with four different sources in
Afghanistan.

Mr Glendenning met Mr Hussain in January in Kabul, where the Australian was
filming a documentary, A Well-Founded Fear, about asylum seekers rejected during
the Howard years.

Mr Glendenning wants the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, to reopen the
cases of the rejected Afghans “as a matter of urgency”. He also wants the
Government to “put in place processes and policies to make sure this never ever
happens again”.

Let’s hope that Chris Evans does indeed do so, as human lives are at risk here and the ridiculous notion of sending people who have outrightly said they are at risk of murder in their home countries do not do so lightly.

Yet even when refugees are released from detention centres, the visas on which they are put are ridiculously inadequate.

Paris Aristotle, writing in The Age newspaper, produced an article which states well the inadequacies of the current system, which begins by discussing an Iraqi man identified only as ‘Ali’:

He fled Iraq in the wake of Saddam’s persecution of Kurds and Shiites. His
village was raided by Iraqi soldiers killing hundreds of people, including his
father. They are searing images in his young mind, haunting his life and
challenging his faith in humanity…

After eight years in Pakistani refugee camps and the threat of repatriation
to Iraq, Ali and the remains of his family resorted to people smugglers to
escape. They made it to Australian territory only to be locked in detention at
Woomera for more than a year.

Razor wire, regular protests, open displays of self-harming and widespread psychological distress — this was the antithesis of what an already traumatised teenage boy needed. Ali and his family were eventually granted refugee status but their three-year temporary protection visa (TPV) meant they were not be entitled to English language classes, assistance to find employment or other settlement services, and the time did not count towards obtaining citizenship.

So even when a family is deemed as requiring protection, the TPV turns out to be extremely inadequate in equipping refugees with the skills and support needed to integrate and contribute effectively into the Australian community. So you might be asking: How many people are actually released from asylum? Surely it must be riddled with terrorists?

Well no, in fact the same article goes on to say:

In reality, more than 90% of asylum seekers held in mandatory detention in
Australia and as a part of the “Pacific Solution” were granted protection in
accordance with the law. Of those remaining, in detention for several years
more, most ultimately received visas also. Many of those visas were granted for
compassionate reasons, not necessarily due to their asylum claims but because
the system had harmed them so severely.

So we spend millions of dollars creating and maintaining centres which treat people, human beings fleeing the governments we denounce, like criminals. The state of these detention centres is extremely psychologically damaging. As Paris Aristotle says, “Razor wire, regular protests, open displays of self-harming and widespread psychological distress — this was the antithesis of what an already traumatised teenage boy needed.” Yet that is exactly what Ali received upon arriving to Australia in an attempt to start a new life and escape the memories of oppression and genocide.

I should point out, however, that there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Although these recommendations are a good start, there are some politicians who are taking a stand against them. Surprisingly enough, the two who have made their voices most loudly heard can be found in the Liberal party in the form of Petro Georgiou, Alan Eggleston, and Sarah Hanson-Young. The official dissenting report can be found here (PDF).

1.5 We strongly disagree that public servants should have such unfettered power
to detain for 12 months without independent external scrutiny which can ensure
the release of people whose detention is assessed as being unnecessary with
respect to the specified criteria.
1.6 If the detention criteria are enshrined in law as the Committee recommends (Recommendation 12), a detained person should not be denied the right for 12 months to have a court examine whether the executive’s decision to detain him or her is in accordance with the law.
1.7 This is a grossly excessive period.

I strongly suggest reading the dissent in full, as it provides many more quotes and statistics too broad to post here.

There are many objections to pushing for improved refugee rights, and most of these are addressed in the Edmund Rice Centre’s document: Debunking Myths about Asylum Seekers. In terms of which myths I’ve heard most in my conversations, three stick out from this document.

Myth #4: That we’re being ’swamped’ with boat people: Ignoring the Hanson-esque phrasing of this ridiculous claim, we have to look at international figures regarding refugees. The best document for this comes straight from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has published a document called 2007 Global Trends. In every indicator, Australia ranks in the lowest category, and in some graphs doesn’t appear at all due to our exceptionally low intake rate. Australia is one of the few countries with a humanitarian refugee ‘quota’, which was this year raised to 13,500 places by the Rudd Government. However, since 2006 that quota has never been reached. When we compare this to international statistics, it becomes clear that Australia is one of the least-affected countries in terms of refugees. Over 300,000 refugees arrive in Europe each year, and in 2000 Iran and Pakistan hosted over a million Afghan refugees, according the the ERC myths sheet. The UNHCR makes it clear in the Global Trends information sheet that between 83 and 90 percent of refugees remain in their region of origin, usually hosted by countries neighbouring their home country.

Myth #5 and #10 combined: That they’re not real refugees but actually terrorists: To quote the Debunking Myths document:

97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking
asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine
refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay
in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate
refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

This is incorrect. Just 11 of more than 13,000 people who sought asylum in Australia last year were rejected on “character grounds”. Only one was regarded as a security risk because of suspected terrorist links. He had come by air, not by boat.

Government intelligence briefings concerning the threat of terrorist attacks have not
mentioned asylum seekers. There remains no evidence that any asylum seekers
currently arriving by boat have any connection to terrorism. Those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks did not arrive in the United States as Asylum Seekers. They flew first class using valid papers.

Myth #7: There is no alternative to mandatory detention: Again quoting directly from the Debunking Myths document:

Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the
only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their
claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention
should be minimal. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system.
A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration
including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of
community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane.

Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).

Again I recommend you read the document in full, as there are a lot of strong statistics there. you can also find further ‘mythbusting‘ documents via the Refugee Action Committee page Facts and Myths about Refugees.

Overall, there remain many problems not only with mandatory detention, but also with how refugees and asylum seekers are treated after they have been accepted. Significant flaws in the TPV system remain, and the notion of forcing former detainees to pay for their time in detention, which is usually extended by fault of slow judicial process rather than by that of themselves, is ridiculous. hopefully this review is just the first step of many on the path to treating refugees and asylum seekers with respect and acknowledgement of their human rights.

Further recommended links:

• The Refugee Council of Australia: Full of good information in an easy-to-navigate form, I recommend the FAQ section if you’re new to the issue
• Rural Australians for Refugees: An organisation of over 15,000 members in support of refugee reform and ongoing support
• Asylum Seekers Resource Centre: If you are or know of a refugee or asylum seeker who is in need of help and assistance, or if you’re interested in volunteering with asylum seekers in any number of roles, this is the place to go.

I entirely admit that this should have been posted a while ago, but better late than never!

So I’ve been working for a client these last few days who is very interested in issues of climate change and a carbon emissions trading scheme, and that has allowed me to hear a lot of perspectives (some more informed than others) in regards to the scheme. I get to hear political commentary, news bulletins, talk back programs, announcers rabbiting on about how God’ll take care of the weather, you name it!

So what’s all the fuss about? Well basically, the new Australian Government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is fulfilling one of its election promises in regards to fighting climate change, which is bound to have a drastic effect on Australian economic and social factors, particularly in terms of agriculture. So Rudd commissioned a report from his Climate Change Advisor, Ross Garnaut (pronounced GARR-NO), in order to establish what industries should be included in an emissions trading scheme, what goals should be set, and who will be most effected.

The trading scheme is bigger than the GST, and represents probably the largest economic policy this government will make. The first step of the carbon emissions trading scheme involves collecting information from businesses about how much carbon they release at this time – this is the step being undertaken now, as businesses are required to keep records from July 1 2008. This information is then used to cap (or limit) the amount of carbon to be released throughout the country. Businesses pay for carbon credits to be given to them, basically giving them permission to pollute to a certain point. Some will obviously get more credits than others, and should a company fall short of using up all their credits, they are allowed to sell those credits to other businesses, who basically want to pollute more than the government thinks they should. As a result, businesses are punished for polluting more (as they need to pay more) and rewarded for polluting less (as they get money back from their credits). In this way, not only are carbon levels capped, but they’re actively reduced as the capitalist system seeks to build profits and cut expenses as best it can. Basically it allows the environmentalists to exploit capitalism, as opposed to the other way around.

The problem which has arisen is that the federal opposition, which originally supported an emissions trading scheme, seems to be coming up with whatever excuse it can to get the Australian public to turn against the idea. This is despite former Prime Minister John Howard supporting plans for emissions trading at the release of the Shergold Report during his time in power. Let’s have a brief look at some of the main opinions, oops I mean ‘problems’, to do with carbon trading:

1. Prices will rise: Naturally! When businesses pay more, these costs are transferred on to the consumer. The thing is that the industries in which we’ll see most price rises are those which we should be discouraged from using! Most notably, energy and petrol. Both of these are, of course, necessary for everyday use, however one of the basic principles of economics is that prices change behaviour. If we really are going to commit ourselves to cutting the carbon levels of this country, we need to both change corporate behaviour (through emissions trading) and change person behaviour. Yes it hurts, but the truth is that ever since global warming became a big issue in my mind, and ever since petrol prices started going through the roof, I have been actively not asking as much from the car, using more public transport and foot power, and turning off my computer at night, as well as lights and heaters. As the Garnaut report confirms, the poor will be those worst effected by a trading scheme, but if the Government follows Garnaut’s suggestions, they will also receive compensation drawn from the extra money made by the carbon tax. Similarly, public transport investment would increase under the system, allowing for those who previously relied on cars to take a train or bus and help reduce carbon emissions personally.

2. We should wait until other competing export economies such as China and India adopt a similar system: The basic premise behind this argument is that Australia’s export economy will suffer under an emissions trading scheme. This, I believe, is true. What this argument does not address, however, is the fact that Garnaut’s report suggests investment and support for export industries so as to allow Australia to remain competitive. I heard a very good analogy from economist Peter Martin, in which he told the following story: A town decides one day that it wants its dry and empty well to bring up milk for just one day, so all the townsfolk agree to place a cup of milk in the well during the night. So the night passes and in the morning all the townspeople flock to the well for the novelty of seeing the bucket come up with milk, but all that comes up is water, because every family has thought either “nobody will notice if we don’t put in a cup of milk” or “we’ll just wait to make sure the other families do it first before we put milk in, because otherwise we’ll lose our milk and nobody else will”. The point is that if we just sit around waiting for other countries to take action, and those countries are sitting waiting for other countries to take action, then what ends up happening is that no action is taken at all. As one of the big players in the Australasian region, we need to take a leading role and show that we are committed to combatting climate change. This in turn will lead to other nations understanding when we make climate change requests as part of our diplomatic discussions, as we have already shown our dedication to the issue. Furthermore, it is important to add that most European nations have already committed to an emissions trading scheme more rigorous than that which is being proposed by Rudd. Also, the state of California has also implemented such a program. India and China already have rates below those of Australia for most exports – the reason people choose to import from Australia is because of quality, not price. If they had simply wanted the cheaper product, their business would already be with one of the lesser developed nations.

3. Climate change isn’t even happening anymore: There are numerous scientific studies showing a continued increase in global temperatures as carbon output increases, and this is not just correlation but causation. For more details from people much smarter than me on meterological and scientific issues, see the World Meterological Organisation’s website or skip to their 2007 climate report.

4. It’s such a complex system that it will be too easy to get it wrong: This is the most upsetting and frustrating of all claims. If governments were to shy away from complex policy, then policy would not exist at all. The tax system? Complex. Education system? Complex. Health system? Complex. Stupidity and an ‘easy ride’ should not be embraced – so let’s look at what the ‘complex’ issues are, address them, and get on with turning climate change around. We’ve already waited long enough.

5. Australians will lose jobs: The Garnaut Report, as well as numerous studies have shown that job loss will not be an issue under emissions trading so long as the appropriate levels of education and training are provided to switch ‘dirty energy’ workers into the new ‘green collar’ jobs. In a Sydney Morning Herald article of September 7 this year, the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU) stated that carbon emissions would change such industries, but “there will be other technologies deployed along the way and our members … have got every reason to have a bright future across a range of different energy sources”. So even those in mining are feeling positive about carbon emissions trading.

All in all, this is an issue that can’t have us sitting on our hands humming “God Save the Queen”. Rather, we should take some time to assess the different options, use the recommendations of the Garnaut report, and start up the program in 2010. I am also very passionate about his suggestions to utilise some of the extra revenue gained from carbon emissions to go back into assisting those who will be hardest hit such as single-parent families and pensioners. Furthermore, investing in public transport is something which is desperately needed across Australia, particularly in Sydney where the situation is, well, bad to say the least. Hopefully new Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull will take a different approach to Brendon Nelson and embrace the idea of tackling climate change ASAP. If we could have bipartisan support of such measures, then things would move a lot faster and effective change – as opposed to needless and unhelpful ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’ – could finally eventuate.

So let’s get moving, no more waiting!

It seems a bit strange that my first post should be about something that’s not technically a political issue, but I was so disgusted when I read this article that I felt I needed to have my say about it.

CHRISTINE HODDER, 38, was a much-loved woman with a husband and a three-year-old daughter, and had almost completed her Bachelor of Nursing degree when she killed herself in her backyard.

Ms Hodder, after enduring years of bullying by male colleagues at Cowra ambulance station, where she was the first and only female officer, hanged herself on her child’s swing in April, 2005.

The article goes on to talk about her frustration, and how despite approaching the issue with a sense of humour at first (I’m sure everyone knows how it feels trying to “laugh off” insults), she started questioning herself, doubting herself, and basically talking herself down. She took multiple bouts of stress leave and lodged two formal complaints.

She could not even leave her car at work because the tyres were let down, her toilet at work was urinated “all over” and she was constantly ridiculed by fellow officers in front of patients…In a five-page complaint dated February 20, 2005, which has been made public, Christine Hodder said she felt she had never been accepted there because she was a woman.
“In the past six years I have been badly treated as other staff members collectively bullied, belittled and intimidated me,” she said.
“The staff in this station has constantly alienated and attacked my character and physical appearance since my arrival.”

The harassment and bullying of women in male-dominated workplaces is something which must be addressed. So after an investigation finding that bullying had indeed taken place in Cowra, what did the report suggest?

It recommended staff receive training in workplaces free of harassment and bullying, that the service should explore how to change the behaviour of staff, and that no female officer be appointed to Cowra for six months. No officer was disciplined.

Hmm.. not particularly effective, I would argue. How about instead of stopping women from entering a workplace, you show the bullies that there are consequences for their actions. Even if this doesn’t involve firing those involved (peer pressure can, after all, turn most nice people into bullies), but at least making them take anger management or anti-harassment classes, reducing them to a lower pay bracket, or even officially charging them. Three strikes should mean that the officers involved are fired. I don’t mean three incidents against different female officers, I mean ANY three incidents.

If we were talking about your average office environment, with a 50/50 split of men to women, then behaviour like this would never be tolerated. Instead, we find a male-dominated workplace happy to scare and intimidate women at work, which has led to keeping women out of that work! If anything, the opposite stance should be adopted – bring in more women and ensure that management is there to support them rather than simply maintain the status quo.

However, thanks to inactive management, no disciplinary policy, and an investigative report which effectively suggests nothing, a good woman who was helping to save lives has taken her own. Good work, fellas.