Just a thought...

UK Childrens' Commissioners and smacking

2006-01-22T12:07:00.000Z

The four UK Childrens' Commissioners have apparently written to the Education Secretary demanding that the government outlaw smacking children.

Apart from being futile, creating a ridiculously unenforceable law and clogging up Westminster with additional useless legislation, a fundamental barrier between the 'private' and the 'public' is being breached. The trend in recent years has been to recognise the lesser legitimacy of government intervention in the purely private domain. While there are few issues which fall completely within the 'private' and do not overflow into the 'public', the choice of childrens' disciplinary methods is surely one of the clearer cases. Within reason (for which existing assault, sexual abuse etc laws adequately cater), bringing up children is a process entirely for the parents. Attempts to homogenise this fly in the face of the multiculturalism and diversity agendas so coveted in the UK (and Australia) at the moment.

Surely, recent reversals of years of intervening in the purely private domains (such as legalising homosexuality, liberalising divorce laws etc) have taught us a lesson? Perhaps not...

Civil unions in Australia

2006-01-08T18:58:00.000Z

Recent debate among government backbenchers in Australia shows that both political and popular support for recognising gay relationships by way of civil unions is gathering speed. However, there will naturally be some resistance and recent comments by David Fawcett (MP for Wakefield in South Australia) really riled me. I have attached a copy of an email I sent him. I'll be interested to see his reply (I'll be sure to post it here too).

Dear Mr Fawcett

I recently read some comments you made to a News Ltd journalist with great distaste and write to challenge a range of your assertions. The particular article to which I refer appears on news.com.au (see http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17662165-421,00.html).

In the context of your commendable attempts to bolster government assistance to Australians wavering in their commitment to marriage, you say:

"We shouldn't be working in that direction. We need to value them as people, but I don't believe it's a necessity in terms of families in Australia to recognise them.”

In my opinion, it is very difficult to reconcile your call to ‘value them [homosexuals] as people’ while concurrently denying them the largely symbolic recognition of a state-sanctioned civil union. I have no qualms about the wish of many religious and political leaders to preserve the estate of ‘marriage’ for the exclusive use of heterosexual couples – it has been this way for centuries and such an institution provides an invaluable societal building block. Unfortunately, however, the denial of a simple wish to have a loving and committed relationship recognised by the state is quite malicious and inconsistent with your wish to have gay Australians valued as people. The nature and worth of a devoted homosexual couple’s relationship is no less than that of a ‘straight’ couple.

You go on to add:

"I think we need to have some very clear incentives to support and encourage marriage and family - that is for the long-term benefit of Australia - and if we grant (gay people) status and privileges across the board, then there's no longer anything that's an incentive or an encouragement for people to work at a marriage.”

I agree with the first part of your statement – the decision to marry has become rather a flippant one and attempts to encourage people to consider carefully its responsibilities and obligations, both religious and societal, are to be supported.

However, your apparent belief that this encouragement should be to the exclusion of gay couples is poorly derived. Surely, there is significant value in the state cultivating (not by marriage as such, but civil union) the lives of faithfulness, love and support regularly demonstrated by homosexual couples. On a simple analysis, stable relationships are more likely to lead to higher levels of economic productivity, greater degrees of community involvement and more familial support. These are clearly valuable in the demographic and social milieu prevailing in Australia at present.

Your further statement that recognising gay civil unions would remove an incentive to marriage (and to work at existing marriages) is again ridiculous – bundled up in what you say are the ideas that:

• People struggling in their marriage must be wrestling with some alternative sexuality
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would cause additional anguish to those in a difficult marriage
• Granting state recognition to gay couples would perhaps reduce the prevalence of straight marriage in Australia

I submit none of these hypotheses are correct, for quite obvious reasons.

I am sure the electorate which you represent has minimal active interest in the debate to which you recently contributed. However, it strikes me your colleague Warren Entsch has been quite vocal in advocating the opposite case, despite his apparently similar electoral demographics. Perhaps you have miscalculated popular support for state-sponsored recognition of homosexual relationships?

Nonetheless, I fear (to be honest, hope!) you may be fighting a losing battle, according to a Sydney Morning Herald story on 1 January, outlining apparent ACT government plans to allow civil unions and even John Howard’s recent statement about his desire for equal property rights for gays (as seen on Senator Andrew Bartlett’s weblog). Although I disagree with many of his policies, as a shrewd political analyst, nobody outshines Mr Howard. If I differed in position to him, I’d wonder at my evaluation of the political landscape.

At the end of the day, support for people who have chosen (or would choose, if the choice were available) to commit themselves to each other absolutely ought not be limited based on whether you are a straight or gay couple. I hope your future reinforcement of the value of ‘marriage’ (in name, and, as far as I’m concerned, concept) is less divisive and recognises the equality of all adult relationships.

Despite my position being strongly at issue with yours, I would be interested in your response to my letter.

Yours sincerely

Geoff....

AOL's "discuss" campaign

2006-01-08T10:09:00.000Z

I've recently seen some ads in the UK from AOL which contrast the Orwellian 'bad' and altruistic 'good' sides to the world's wholesale adoption of the internet. I found the ads quite thought provoking (now there's a change!) but wonder at their motives. There is no 'selling'; just a noble call to discussion. Are the ads merely intended to gather content for future advertising campaigns that actually sell something? It might just be an altogether cheap way to conduct market research!

Brokeback Mountain

2006-01-07T23:18:00.000Z

First things first - as far as compelling titles go, I'm not much of a talent (see above)!

But, for some reason, this movie has generated a funny feeling in me. As a gay twenty-something, I think it's got something to do with the sheer frustration and pain experienced by Jack and Ennis. The emotions of struggle and pain this movie evoked for me, and the fact I cannot reconcile that with my own gay experience, probably also has something to do with it. It's ridiculous that I should feel that frustration and ache ought to be part of my existence as a homosexual (among other things. And mind you, I'm not saying there's been none of these emotions, just less than in the movie)! I did identify with much of the film, particularly Ennis' palpably gut wrenching, anguished separation from Jack after the first summer of their relationship. Emotions aside, as a certifiably unqualified film critic, I found the cinematography gratifying and, aside from a short period, the storyline compelling. I will certainly be seeking to see some other Ang Lee titles soon.

In search of some validation of my thoughts, I searched out some reviews of the film and randomly stumbled across
this one, with which I (almost) whole-heartedly disagree. Read it and see what you think.

The reviewer (Westhoff) suggests Jack is 'wantonly selfish' for wanting to buy a ranch with Ennis so they could live (and work) together, while presumably maintaining a believable subterfuge for their closeness. In light of Westhoff's profound (no, not really) observation that homophobic mobs would likely lynch the occupants of an openly gay relationship, to call Jack's desire for a facade capable of maintaining their obvious love a selfish one is derisory. Westhoff's assertion that barely a seat would be filled in cinemas showing Brokeback were it not for the only (and utterly non-explicit) sex scene between Jack and Ennis is also unfounded. Would he agree that Titanic would have bombed but for the famous 'hand on the steamy window' scene? Unlikely. Finally, the reviewer degrades the magnitude of the characters' self-discovery and consumption with each other by criticising their irresponsibility in safeguarding their flock (of sheep). C'mon, enough already with the negative undertones about the morals and ethics of gays - it's not as if no straight characters have left their post to get drunk and seek out sexual gratification. Their disregard, in a part of the film that otherwise highlighted Ennis and Jack's commitment to their jobs, merely demonstrated the depth of their feelings for each other. In other ways, the two men cause untold suffering; however, to criticise the 'deserting their post' sub-plot, to me, shows Westhoff's (and maybe Lee's?) underlying feelings about gays.