![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeasti recently joined the CAAH_Sydney Yahoo! group. 'CAAH' is the "Campaign for Action Against Homophobia". And i must say that so far, i've been disappointed by what i've seen.
First up, there's the issue of the National Day of Action on August 13, which is the anniversary of the Federal government passing legislation to ban same-sex marriage. As i have noted here previously, i am concerned about the emphasis being placed on same-sex marriage as the issue facing queers, to the detriment of other issues - particularly homophobic violence. i had expressed my concerns about this when i first heard about the proposed NDA on the QueerNews list; i was told by someone from the VGLRL that the day would be about queer rights in general. So when i saw the NDA being promoted on the CAAH_Sydney list as being solely about same-sex marriage, i wrote an email expressing my concern:
In response, i was told:
So, basically, "Yeah, feel free to talk about it, but officially, we won't be raising it as a primary issue; someone else can do something about it." :-| i guess when you're working in an alliance with Australian Marriage Equality, that's the line you have to take. Mark Pendleton, one of the editors of Bite Magazine1, recently wrote an excellent critique of AME's positions, which i reproduce here behind a cut:
--- Critique ---
Australian Marriage Equality - they are one of the main groups to call for the rally on August 13. This is some of their 19 reasons why people should support "marriage equality". I've responded to their reasons with some of my problems with the campaign and the support it is getting from otherwise progressive organisations such as the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. It would be great if people wanted to comment on them...
Why should queer (or other sex) radicals support campaigns that articulate this as the #1 reason to be involved? Marriage is one form of commitment and one form of relationship. Prioritising it over others is conservative and disturbing.
Um, I don't want the state regulating my love and/or fidelity (ahem) and, to go a bit further, the state has no place in regulating love and fidelity. It is my argument that we should be advocating a removal of state regulation of love, which would rightfully be something regulated consensually by the parties involved.
These legal benefits SHOULD NOT exist. That is the radical position on marriage. It is not enough to say that those of us who want to publicly commit to each other through marriage should access equality under the law, full security and protections for family. What about those who have chosen not to do that? I'm willing to bet my life savings (about $100 so it's not too much) that we won't see AME come out in opposition to taxation benefits for married couples, which means that i, as someone who plans to remain single, will always be subsidising THEIR choices. This is not radical, or even progressive, and demonstrates yet again, that marriage campaigns are actually about achieving individual benefit at the cost of others. When pro-marriage queers ask me to stand behind them, I cannot be sure they will ever stand behind me . . . because their interests will remain in maintaining that disparity.
Yep, sure - but it is still privileged over other relationship structures and accrues benefits because of this - this is wrong and this is what should be opposed.
This is so laughable it's not funny. If some queers can marry, that equates to human rights and an inclusive Australia? Queer radicals should be pushing society to challenge sex and gender roles, relationship structures and the general fucked- ness of Australian society. Arguing for inclusivity is essentially acceptance of the status quo - "it'll be alright as long as us queers can marry and be just like you".
Come on. the role of government as proven over hundreds of years is to reinforce discrimination and prejudice and to suppress dissent. Ethics has never been involved.
Aha - it's explicit. "We don't want to challenge you, we want to be you". Well i DO want to be a threat to the institution of marriage and i don't think marriage is an important part of society. It's not simply a matter of me exercising my individual choice not to marry . . . because marriage is an institution that fucks people over, and individual choices are only ever disempowering.
Yep, great. More people getting married. Just what radicals want to see.
Literally hundreds of thousands of Australians are consciously NOT living in committed relationships and are consciously NOT positively contributing to Australian society.
I am astounded that progressives and feminists would align themselves with people such as these. Marriage is best for children? Children need committed parents as role models? A stable marriage is needed to have a family? Haven't feminists been debunking this bullshit for decades?
What disturbs me most about the pro-marriage campaigns is that, in a rush for relevance, leftish groups have jumped on a limited rights bandwagon that will result in an outcome that is worse for those the left claims to care about. Should this campaign win, those on the margins will be sidelined as the gay establishment becomes just another fucking group of suburban mortgage payers who think first about their interest rates and tax thresholds. Rather than attempting to stay 'relevant' to these positions, shouldn't we be challenging them?
--- End critique ---
My second concern about CAAH - although it's hardly unique to that group - is based on an email that came through to the CAAH_Sydney list calling for people interested in participating in a joint complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board about John Law's queerphobic comments last year. Er, no, sorry, i won't be doing that. Were Laws' comments offensive to me? Certainly. Will fining him, or even sending him to jail, change his attitudes towards queers? i very much doubt it. Will fining him change society's attitudes? Again, i very much doubt it. Some people claim that such an outcome will "demonstrate that our society doesn't find such behaviour acceptable". Uh huh. Yeah, Laws' queerphobia is an isolated case; he's a member of our society's queerphobic minority. The majority of people in our society are queer-friendly. </sarcasm>
i believe that the result of criminalising queerphobic speech is not a change in people's queerphobic attitudes, but a strengthing of those attitudes, as people resent being told what to say and what not to say (and implicitly, what to think and what not to think)2. i believe that all it does is sweep queerphobia under the carpet, and into hidden spaces, where it's harder to deal with. i believe that queerphobia can only be addressed by grassroots public education campaigns, by actually convincing people that queerphobia is a Bad Thing, rather than leaving their queerphobia intact as long as they don't express it verbally. i feel that the resources being put in to this complaint to the ADB would be better directed towards the sort of public education campaigns i mentioned above. Oh, but i forgot: the only real issue facing queers at the moment - the issue that we must campaign on, the issue that takes precedence over all other issues facing queers - is the issue of same-sex marriage. :-P
Update, 7.9.2005:
1. A magazine i'm proud to be associated with - i'm currently revamping the Bite Web site to facilitate putting Bite online in both PDF and HTML form. It's just about ready. (Well, at least, the PDF section.) :-)
2. And anyway, i believe in actual freedom of speech, not "say what you think, as long as i agree with it." What right do i have to demand the freedom to say what i think if i simultaneously deny that right to others?
First up, there's the issue of the National Day of Action on August 13, which is the anniversary of the Federal government passing legislation to ban same-sex marriage. As i have noted here previously, i am concerned about the emphasis being placed on same-sex marriage as the issue facing queers, to the detriment of other issues - particularly homophobic violence. i had expressed my concerns about this when i first heard about the proposed NDA on the QueerNews list; i was told by someone from the VGLRL that the day would be about queer rights in general. So when i saw the NDA being promoted on the CAAH_Sydney list as being solely about same-sex marriage, i wrote an email expressing my concern:
i, for one, would be very concerned if the NDA was /only/ about queer marriage, and not queerphobia in general . . . . what sort of message would we be sending to the people of Australia if it appears that only the issue of marriage, and not discrimination, harrassment, isolation and violence, is what prompts a National Day of Action from the queer communities?
In response, i was told:
The Queer Marriage NDA was originally organised as a queer marriage action. It was planned on the anniversary of the Marriage Ban one year ago. Having said this there will be no "queer marriage police" ensuring that this will be the only subject canvassed :) . . . Sperate from this marriage action I would hope that there are an number of other campaigns on a number and whole range of queerphobic discrimination issues. Let me know if they are planned. I am sure CAAH bods will want to get involved and even initiate some of them if and when ideas are put forward.
So, basically, "Yeah, feel free to talk about it, but officially, we won't be raising it as a primary issue; someone else can do something about it." :-| i guess when you're working in an alliance with Australian Marriage Equality, that's the line you have to take. Mark Pendleton, one of the editors of Bite Magazine1, recently wrote an excellent critique of AME's positions, which i reproduce here behind a cut:
--- Critique ---
Australian Marriage Equality - they are one of the main groups to call for the rally on August 13. This is some of their 19 reasons why people should support "marriage equality". I've responded to their reasons with some of my problems with the campaign and the support it is getting from otherwise progressive organisations such as the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. It would be great if people wanted to comment on them...
Marriage recognizes the highest possible commitment that can be made by two
adults in a relationship.
Why should queer (or other sex) radicals support campaigns that articulate this as the #1 reason to be involved? Marriage is one form of commitment and one form of relationship. Prioritising it over others is conservative and disturbing.
Instead of attempting to ban same sex marriage, Australia's government should encourage two people who love each other to sanctify their love with legal union and fidelity.
Um, I don't want the state regulating my love and/or fidelity (ahem) and, to go a bit further, the state has no place in regulating love and fidelity. It is my argument that we should be advocating a removal of state regulation of love, which would rightfully be something regulated consensually by the parties involved.
Only under the term "marriage" can same sex unions be assured full equality under the law, and full security and protections for family. Creating a 'parallel, non- marriage martial status' falls far short of full equal rights.
Same sex marriage extends societal benefits - from inheritance, to pensions, to hospital visitation rights.
Same sex couples would assume legal responsibility for joint living expenses, thus reducing dependence on public programs.
These legal benefits SHOULD NOT exist. That is the radical position on marriage. It is not enough to say that those of us who want to publicly commit to each other through marriage should access equality under the law, full security and protections for family. What about those who have chosen not to do that? I'm willing to bet my life savings (about $100 so it's not too much) that we won't see AME come out in opposition to taxation benefits for married couples, which means that i, as someone who plans to remain single, will always be subsidising THEIR choices. This is not radical, or even progressive, and demonstrates yet again, that marriage campaigns are actually about achieving individual benefit at the cost of others. When pro-marriage queers ask me to stand behind them, I cannot be sure they will ever stand behind me . . . because their interests will remain in maintaining that disparity.
Marriage is a legal, economic, social, and family contract that has evolved over time. History has shown that marriage has always been an ever-changing institution, adapting and changing with the times to remain strong and relevant in society.
Yep, sure - but it is still privileged over other relationship structures and accrues benefits because of this - this is wrong and this is what should be opposed.
A ban on gay marriage singles out the GLBT community for exclusive, discriminatory treatment, and consequently, strips us our basic human rights. Marriage equality, by contrast, sends the message that Australia is an inclusive society.
This is so laughable it's not funny. If some queers can marry, that equates to human rights and an inclusive Australia? Queer radicals should be pushing society to challenge sex and gender roles, relationship structures and the general fucked- ness of Australian society. Arguing for inclusivity is essentially acceptance of the status quo - "it'll be alright as long as us queers can marry and be just like you".
Government's role is to ensure all Australian people have access to fairness, justice and equality. It is not ethical for government to reinforce discrimination and prejudice.
Come on. the role of government as proven over hundreds of years is to reinforce discrimination and prejudice and to suppress dissent. Ethics has never been involved.
Same sex marriage is not a threat to the institution of marriage - it is a re- affirmation of its importance in our society.
Aha - it's explicit. "We don't want to challenge you, we want to be you". Well i DO want to be a threat to the institution of marriage and i don't think marriage is an important part of society. It's not simply a matter of me exercising my individual choice not to marry . . . because marriage is an institution that fucks people over, and individual choices are only ever disempowering.
While contemporary marriage rates between opposite sex couples have decreased to historic lows in the West, the recognition of same sex marriage has actually led to heterosexual marriage increases in Scandinavia, according to the Council of Contemporary Families.
Yep, great. More people getting married. Just what radicals want to see.
Legislating for gay marriage merely recognizes the status quo. Literally hundreds of thousands of GLBT Australians are already living in committed relationships, and positively contributing to Australian society.
Literally hundreds of thousands of Australians are consciously NOT living in committed relationships and are consciously NOT positively contributing to Australian society.
Those who argue for marriage inequality are denying children the best legal protection and economic safety-net that marriage would bring their family. All children should enjoy the tangible and intangible benefits that marriage can bring.
many gay parents want the freedom to marry precisely because they are raising kids and want to do so within marriage.
Same sex parents want what straight parents want - the freedom to marry, so as to provide a stable and committed environment for their family.
I am astounded that progressives and feminists would align themselves with people such as these. Marriage is best for children? Children need committed parents as role models? A stable marriage is needed to have a family? Haven't feminists been debunking this bullshit for decades?
What disturbs me most about the pro-marriage campaigns is that, in a rush for relevance, leftish groups have jumped on a limited rights bandwagon that will result in an outcome that is worse for those the left claims to care about. Should this campaign win, those on the margins will be sidelined as the gay establishment becomes just another fucking group of suburban mortgage payers who think first about their interest rates and tax thresholds. Rather than attempting to stay 'relevant' to these positions, shouldn't we be challenging them?
--- End critique ---
My second concern about CAAH - although it's hardly unique to that group - is based on an email that came through to the CAAH_Sydney list calling for people interested in participating in a joint complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board about John Law's queerphobic comments last year. Er, no, sorry, i won't be doing that. Were Laws' comments offensive to me? Certainly. Will fining him, or even sending him to jail, change his attitudes towards queers? i very much doubt it. Will fining him change society's attitudes? Again, i very much doubt it. Some people claim that such an outcome will "demonstrate that our society doesn't find such behaviour acceptable". Uh huh. Yeah, Laws' queerphobia is an isolated case; he's a member of our society's queerphobic minority. The majority of people in our society are queer-friendly. </sarcasm>
i believe that the result of criminalising queerphobic speech is not a change in people's queerphobic attitudes, but a strengthing of those attitudes, as people resent being told what to say and what not to say (and implicitly, what to think and what not to think)2. i believe that all it does is sweep queerphobia under the carpet, and into hidden spaces, where it's harder to deal with. i believe that queerphobia can only be addressed by grassroots public education campaigns, by actually convincing people that queerphobia is a Bad Thing, rather than leaving their queerphobia intact as long as they don't express it verbally. i feel that the resources being put in to this complaint to the ADB would be better directed towards the sort of public education campaigns i mentioned above. Oh, but i forgot: the only real issue facing queers at the moment - the issue that we must campaign on, the issue that takes precedence over all other issues facing queers - is the issue of same-sex marriage. :-P
Update, 7.9.2005:
The Australian Media and Communications Authority has found Sydney radio station 2UE did not breach anti-vilification guidelines in comments made on-air about one of the hosts of the television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
1. A magazine i'm proud to be associated with - i'm currently revamping the Bite Web site to facilitate putting Bite online in both PDF and HTML form. It's just about ready. (Well, at least, the PDF section.) :-)
2. And anyway, i believe in actual freedom of speech, not "say what you think, as long as i agree with it." What right do i have to demand the freedom to say what i think if i simultaneously deny that right to others?
Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH)
Date: 2005-08-17 12:17 (UTC)I think that these criticism are being overly harsh on CAAH. I wrote the email that you are disecting (please quote the entire email if you are going to reference my emails at all) and it was a genuine email encouraging you to come to CAAH meetings and getting involved in planning the NDA events and other event that CAAH could work on to end discrimination against queer identfying people. If you are not happy with that then there is little I can do.
Blaming CAAH for not introducing every unarticulated issue under the sun when we start organising a Sydney contribution to an National Day of Action is ridiculous. The event was a national event and we are a Sydney based group we can do what we want at the rally and introduce a number of aspects but in the end the entire day does mark the protest at the anniversary of the marriage ban. I have no time for people that can't even accept invitations to come to meetings to discuss their ideas and yet feel free to rant on their live journals about not bieng listened to.
PS: There is no official line that CAAH takes only the ideas that community members who turn up to CAAH meetings want to take from these meetings.
Re: Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH)
Date: 2005-08-17 12:42 (UTC)Re. quoting your entire email. Well, i apologise; i was actually trying to be polite, and only quoting as much as i needed to make my point. But i have no problem with quoting your full email here, because i feel it basically doesn't change the gist of what i was unhappy about:
Re. turning up to meetings. Turning up to meetings would have been a tad difficult, since i live in Melbourne. :-P Why was i on the CAAH_Sydney list, then? Well, i thought CAAH was actually a national group, and that the discussion group list being called 'CAAH_Sydney' was simply an artifact of Sydney perhaps being the first city for which a CAAH discussion list was formed.
Additionally, before railing at someone for not attending meetings, you might like to consider whether they have some limitations that prevent them from doing so: i have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and depression, both of which severely limit my ability to go out and participate in things. Perhaps you might like to consider how your group can ensure that input from other people in such a situation is fed into meetings?
Re: Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH)
Date: 2005-08-17 13:04 (UTC)My issue with adding an unarticulated shopping list of issues to the NDA was not an attack on the campaign against queerphobia but instead an emphasis on my desire to see people give their opinion rather than just assuming that the ideas they have will be mind read by the group. I guess since you are down in Melbourne you have an excuse for not attending meetings so I will not blame you too much.
We have tried to set up other CAAH groups in state other than NSW but this has not happended yet. If you are not able to turn up to CAAH meetings then basically the CAAH_Sydney discussion list is the place to voice your opinion. CAAH is in the process of writting a constitution. If you want to suggest changes to enable activists from different states to proxy vote in meetings then feel free to put this idea to the list, alternatively, just propose ideas that other people can discuss and vote on at Sydney CAAH meetings.
Better still start a version of CAAH down in Victoria. You would be suprised at the number of CAAH bods that have migrate down to that state.
Re: Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH)
Date: 2005-08-17 13:13 (UTC)Er, so having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and major depression would not be a good enough excuse? (By the way, one of the major reasons i have CFS is because i spent many years burning the candle at both ends by simultaneously working a full-time job and doing lots of activist work, in a variety of areas.)
See above. And anyway, i already have my hands full with Pleasure Activism Australia (http://www.pleasureactivism.org/), a project i feel passionately about, for reasons i explained in this entry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hierodule/13403.html).