Reblogged from the Castan Centre.
This survey is a ridiculous waste of money and an offensively bad way to determine issues of policy, but the question is simple:
Should the law be changed to allow same-sex marriage?
That’s it. It is not about free speech or parenting or religious freedom or boys wearing dresses (which is actually not a bad thing…)
It’s just about whether Australian law should be equal and non-discriminatory. That’s all.
So vote yes, post your vote as soon as you get it, and remember this whole exercise in unleashing discrimination, bigotry and public expenditure wastefulness when we next have to vote for the government…
By Caitlin McInnis The marriage equality survey is now under way, and lots of Australians are showing their support for equal love. If you want to stay inspired on a daily basis, there are many things you can do, including following us on Facebook and Twitter, where we’ll be making the “YES” case every day. […]
via 5 things you need to know about voting in the marriage equality survey — Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
I would find this post a lot more engaging if the author left comments open, so that people could have a respectful debate. It wasn’t a case of closing comments after a disrepectful debate – there’s just no comments at all.
It’s a good article on dissecting when is a term a slur or a descriptive term, but I do disagree with the author’s conclusions.
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs, are a distinct group of people (and frequently intersect as Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists or SWERFs.) These are people who believe that feminism is only for women, and ‘woman’ is defined by biology; or have a belief that there is no form of sex work that can be consensual because any form of sex work is inherently violent.
I strongly disagree with both propositions.
Put it this way: the people who get offended about the term TERF or SWERF are people being described as TERF or SWERF. Other feminists, and people who do not identify as feminists, don’t find the terms offensive – they find the term descriptive, as it conveniently summarises a wide spectrum of arguments that typify some parts of radical feminism.
Do we define a description as a slur simply because the person to whom that description applies doesn’t like being described in that way? Does this mean that when we describe Eddie McGuire as a person who habitually says or does things that are racist or misogynist, that we’re offending McGuire and his fans by calling him racist or misogynist? Because that is more or less the equivalent to “TERFs don’t like being called TERFs so therefore it’s a slur.”
So… worth reading, but respectfully: no.
Content note: this post contains examples of offensive slur-terms. Last week, the British edition of Glamour magazine published a column in which Juno Dawson used the term ‘TERF’ to describe feminists (the example she named was Germaine Greer) who ‘steadfastly believe that me—and other trans women—are not women’. When some readers complained about the use […]
via What makes a word a slur? — language: a feminist guide
Today Pauline Hanson made her maiden speech to the Australian Senate. I’m not going to link to it, because she’s had more than enough airtime for her xenophobic hate speech.
Much of it is a carbon copy of her maiden speech to the House of Representatives, 20 years ago, when she claimed that Australia was being swamped by Asians. Today, the Asian horde has been replaced by Muslims; her supposed fear of ‘Straylians being bred out of their own country has been replaced by her supposed fear of being blown up by a bearded terrorist clad in an ISIS flag.
It makes me really sad that we’ve come so … NOT far in the last 20 years, that this overt racism hits a note with enough voting Australians that people like Hanson are being elected to our Parliament. Again.
Read More »
Asher Wolf spent today walking around the Melbourne CBD talking to homeless people, after the recent spike in attention for this issue. There’s a perception in the media and amongst those privileged enough to have never worked with or had to deal with housing security that homelessness rates have increased: they have and they haven’t.
Cuts to welfare, combine with an economy on the skids and gung-ho useless “law and order” policies have combined to cause a slight increase in the amount of people sleeping rough, but what has caused the recent “spike” is just that a long standing camp has been closed, and consequently people who used that as a base have had to find new spots to sleep rough – more visible spots.
Highly recommend reading the experience of homelessness from those living on our streets.
We need to reconsider how we, as a community, respond to housing insecurity. Demonising people, or treating them as “inconsiderate”, is not constructive. As Kyle told Asher,
… the system is fucked. Things get run by some guy in a suit who’s read a text book and thinks they know better than everyone. The system needs people who can empathise better.
Last night, I went to the Liberty Victoria Voltaire dinner. The Voltaire Award winner and keynote speaker was Waleed Aly: academic, news presenter, guitar shredder and all around cool dude.
He gave a thoughtful and engaging lecture on the importance of examining the philosophical underpinnings of human rights law. It’s a topic I am very much interested in, have lots of thoughts about and have been meaning to do a blog on this area for some time. So here’s my excuse!
And because I am going to refer back to Waleed’s points, I do dedicate this blog to him. Cheers mate!
Read More »