Speakers and crowd at the Equal Love National Day of Action

Yesterday I attended the Equal Love National Day of Action in Brisbane. I estimate that around 200-300 people attended, although I’m prone to overestimating when counting people. (For the record, I’m also prone to overestimating when catering for a party, so you’ll never go hungry at my place.) A number of my friends from Twitter were these as well and it was great to be involved in something that is very important and very now.

Something I feel needs to be shouted from the rooftop is that despite some media reports, the protesters were not all gay and lesbian people. Australians everywhere need to realise that straight Australians also support this movement and the right for same sex couples to get married.

I think twitter user @Calrion makes an excellent point:

Either: marriage is a religious rite, held exclusively by clergy; or: marriage is between two consenting adults. That is all.

I had never really thought about it this way until I read it yesterday. If it is the former, then as an Atheist my marriage is a sham and a fraud. If marriage is a religious rite, as the churches and other interest groups are quick to proclaim, then we shouldn’t have gotten married.

Natalie and I got married because we love each other and we wanted to proclaim that love to the world. We also wanted to officially record that we were committed to each other. We had a civil ceremony held by a marriage celebrant (Natalie’s godmother actually) and it was beautiful. It had nothing to do with God, Allah, Jehovah or any other deity.

If we are allowed to have a wedding and be atheists, then why can’t same sex couples (regardless of their religious beliefs) have this option too. We live in a secular world. Marriage must be between two consenting adults of any sex, any race, and any creed.

It’s a shame Kevin Rudd doesn’t see it that way, but there is something you can to do help.

There is currently a Senate Enquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, the bill being recently introduced into the Senate by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. (Readers will know that I don’t agree with the Greens on everything, but this is something I can get behind.) Make a submission to the enquiry and make your voice heard. Tell other people you know about this.

Let the rest of Australia know that this isn’t fair and cannot stand the way it is. Let those who think they are alone in their support know that they are not, so that we can all come together as one voice. Together, we can beat this oppression and bring about a monumental change to the rights of all Australians.

Let’s do this now. It’s the 21st century after all!

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently been asked to comment on her views regarding Reproductive Rights and Family Planning, including abortion. Rather than summarise, here is the YouTube video of the question and her  answer.

There will be those who disagree with her view and you are entitled to that right. I am with Secretary Clinton on this one. It must be the individual’s right to choose whether abortion is suitable for them. Providing good family planning advice, including information about contraception and safer sex practices is important no matter where you live. Providing the tools for girls and boys, men and women to make sound and informed decisions is much more important than running scare mongering campaigns.

Teaching kids about sex is just as important as teaching them about other physical health issues and perhaps even more so in some cases. They are not resistant to hormones and need to have the information available to think for themselves. Providing them with age appropriate education in a safe environment is important. If parents want to opt their children out then we shouldn’t stop them. But we shouldn’t allow a group to force their views on abortion, sex education or family planning on anyone else.

If your deity, your moral values or your ideological view of society says that it is wrong to have an abortion, then you do what you need to do. Let other women decide for themselves and do whatever they decide they need to do.

I’ve been thinking more about the issues I mentioned in my previous post on child discipline. The consensus (that being two commentators, for the record) is that any form of physical discipline is abuse. So it appears that I’m old fashioned and probably should never have children myself. It’s also been suggested to me that physical discipline only comes from the parent’s frustration/anger at the child not following directions. So now I’m wondering, should people need to sit a parenting test and get a licence?

That might seem far fetched and out of touch, but lets think about this for a minute.

It seems that the courts and the child advocate groups have decided that you cannot discipline using excessive physical force. So where is the line in the sand? Some say that any force is excessive. Some say that using a weapon (for example, a belt or a cane) is where the line should be drawn. So already we have a blurred line from which to work from. So lets clear it up.

Lets make it illegal to use any force against a child. No hand smacking, belts, cords, canes, hitting or slapping. Nothing.

Parents are then left with reason, talking, positive parenting techniques and all sorts of other stuff that the Super Nanny would probably prescribe. How is the average Australian parent meant to keep abreast of the currently worlds best discipline techniques? If parents are only to use whatever means the child advocacy groups feel is best, then what options are available?

Lets gather all people who are capable of having a child and license them. Then they can do a course similar to a first aid course, a basic parenting course. Make them sit through a course teaching all the current parenting techniques and demonstrate the use of them through role play. If they pass, they get a licence and are now allowed to have children. Perhaps if you fail you are sterilised temporarily until you can pass. We don’t want just anyone having a child.

What if we make it a requirement to attend a yearly refresher to keep their skills up to date? That’s a revenue raiser for the Government or child advocacy groups, who could tender for the right to teach these courses. Imagine a generation of parents being taught by Hetty Johnson the rights and wrongs of child rearing, as well as the world in general. Sounds like a fun Sunday afternoon.

We need to carefully consider what we teach in these courses though. Twenty years ago people would have laughed to suggest that using a cane or belt on a child would get them into court. Not any more. So what is to say that some of the current worlds best practices are not going to go the same way in another twenty years? Could the naughty step been seen as psychologically damaging to the child in the future, and we’ll have to go to court for using that too?

It has almost gotten to the point where its too hard to have a child and bring them up.  Perhaps belting your child is too far. One wack on the bum with a hand would seem to be the level of physical discipline that should be the line. But remember if you give that smack all they have to do is complain and they’ll be taken away to a much better place.

Foster care. Because that’s where we aspire our future generation to go.

There has been a fair bit of talk this week within the Twitterverse about the concept of having sponsorship for #btub events. For those who don’t follow Twitter, #btub is the Brisbane Twitter Underground Brigade. It’s not particularly underground at this stage but really it is a chance for Brisbane Twitter users to get together, have a few drinks and network. Anyone can organise and hold a #btub event. All you need do is tweet an event with the hashtag #btub and see if people are interested. So talk this week of sponsorship for #btub events worries me.

Some people might think that sponsorship is unlikely to get off the ground. Without thinking too hard, here are some ideas that companies may be willing to consider for a large organised gathering of people.

• Free gifts/Knickknacks/Branded Items- a company might throw in some free shirts or coasters or movie passes. Small gifts.
• Food or Drinks – perhaps a venue will supply nibbles and soft drink. It might even be a bar tab or a free beer on arrival.
• Product Giveaways – distinct from gifts, a company may want to give away a prize or some of their product to people. Telstra might give away a 3G internet package. A computer company some free wireless routers.
• Money – never put it past a company to offer money for sponsorship, which really just ends up being advertising. This could be $50 for a quick plug during a speech, a logo on name tags or a whole lot more for naming rights, “the Helstra #btub spectacular”. (Ok, I am pushing the boundaries – but surely you’ve heard of scope creep, right?)

So there is definitely scope for sponsorship, whether in dollars, product or services.

For those who don’t know much about how to organise a #btub event, it is really simple. Anyone can do it. Lets say @definatalie and I are headed to the State Library and tweet “Meet us at the State Library at 2pm. Lets catch up for a chat. Maybe coffee/drinks afterwards? #btub” Now that’s enough to start a #btub event. No sponsorship involved and a very nice day out. Note to self: organise this some day.

Another person might organise a movie night at one of the major movie chains. They’ve arranged to have a 20% discount and a free popcorn for those who come along. Perhaps they’ve agreed to tweet this message, complete with company name until the movie night. Maybe part of the deal was to tweet from the event and hope other people will tweet the company name.

Sponsors always expect something for their money. Even if it is free food and drink, they still spend real cash dollars to provide it. They are in business and they spend money to make money. It doesn’t make sense to sponsor something if they don’t make something out of it in return. Is it ethical to organise a social gathering in the name of profit making for a sponsor?

Now since #btubs can be organised by anyone, imagine for a second if you received an offer too good to refuse. Company A will pay sponsor a #btub event. Food, drink or product – it doesn’t matter. Then they offer you $500 to get their word around. You can’t tell anyone you are getting paid to spruik their wares, and since you are bringing the sponsorship gifts you certainly expect a large amount of goodwill to come from attendees. So you figure, “Hey, I’ve spent ages organising this. Why shouldn’t I get something out of it?”

This is where it all falls apart. People will find out because they always do. Something doesn’t feel right and then all of a sudden it’s out in the open. All of that wonderful feeling and community spirit of #btub is ripped out from under everyone and it dies.

I don’t doubt that the current #btub community are in it for the right reasons. I’m totally sure that no one in their right mind would attempt something like this. But the number of people attending is huge now and each time the number grows and grows. Who knows who are going to be the organisers in the next six months.

(Sidebar: Don’t tell me there are no organisers. There are a few driven and committed people who make this stuff happen each month. We’d be lost without them.)

#btub has grown because it is organic. It grows through word of mouth and people meeting up with people and then bringing more people with them. It’s a social event that also involves networking, having a few drinks and a laugh and enjoying one another.

Let’s not let money get in the way of a good thing.

(Thanks to definatalie for salvaging this blog post that I accidentally deleted – Nicholas)

Newly elected Premier Anna Bligh has come out fighting today in an attempt to crack down on the evil scourge of Australia, the Bikie Gangs! Reports of her announcement should ring alarm bells for any ordinary Queenslander with news that the new laws will strike “to the heart of the right of association.” This should worry you deeply.

“Why”? I hear you ask? “Won’t this just affect the criminal bikie gangs and not little ol’ me?” Wrong!

You’ve never heard of scope creep, have you?

Scope creep is where you have laws in place for one thing but through small changes in laws they morph into something else. Look at the internet censorship laws as a case in point. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 brought into law that any content held overseas that was either Restricted Content or X18+ was prohibited (note: not illegal). Anything R18+ was fine – the ACMA could not add these sites to any blacklist.

Thanks to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act 2007, R18+ content now falls into this ‘prohibited’ category. Did you hear Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy running around mentioning that during the election? No. Did they even mention it during the Senate Committee inquiry/report for the bill? No. What about in the Explanatory Notes? No! (Graham 2009)

So what is to stop similar things happening with the new Bikie Gang laws? I don’t imagine Anna Bligh as a tyrant but what if someone else gets in who is? We have a unicameral legislature – that means we don’t have an upper house to play the important role of checking what happens in the lower house. We have just one legislature and what they pass is law. (Well, the Governor’s accent is needed, but that’s not really a problem if you can select your own Governor).

We need to crack down on the crimes that these Bikie Gangs are committing, not on stopping groups from congregating. So perhaps I could get into power and add the CWA to the list? If in a powerful enough position, any premier could do such a preposterous thing so easily with these laws in place.

That is far fetched, but lets extend it to terror groups. Should we ban groups of Muslim men from gathering together? What about Christian men who are considered a threat? Could we see political groups or other hardcore political groups sidelined through these laws? All it takes is another ‘crisis’ and we have the need to modify the legislation oh so slightly.

Once passed, it’s harder to get them off the books. We must stand up now – our rights are on the line. Together as a state and say NO to restricting our right to associate. You cannot nanny us, Anna Bligh and the ALP.

References

Graham, Irene 2009, Libertus.Net, Brisbane, accessed 30 March 2009, http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html