Should we react to the far right?

Originally published in FUSE, August 2011

It seems as though almost every week a far right activist causes a storm through saying some extremely ridiculous, or insulting, about queer people.

For example, in the United States, presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann has made headlines for signing a pledge that implied that black children were better off under slavery because they were more like to grow up in a family with a mother and father, which was now under threat due to the rise of queer rights.
In Australia, the sister of Kevin Rudd, Loree, wrote a letter to all Federal Members of Parliament asking them to resist the ‘global gay Gestapo’ that was engaging in propaganda campaign to legislate same-sex marriage.

The response to many of these attacks is, understandingly, outrage.

One must ask the question however, does engaging with the far right simply provide them with a platform to have their voice heard? Are we better off just ignoring these loons instead of engaging with them?

Many social movement theorists will tell you that ‘fringe’ elements of social movements, whilst they can provide initial embarrassment and shame to more moderate elements, provide essential cover to these people.

For example, with an established conservative such as Michelle Bachmann saying that homosexuality is a ‘health risk’, it becomes easier for other conservatives to make claims that we should not teach about homosexuality in schools. Bachmann’s statements make these statements look reasonable, in turn bringing people on side, and taking the debate to the right.

It is a tactic that many in the left are not so great at. Whilst we campaign for same-sex marriage rights, many often condemn those who speak out against the oppression of marriage itself, not because they disagree, but because they believe that any real reform to marriage is ‘unachievable’.

This can often make it more difficult for progressive activists to achieve significant reforms to our societal systems, as the goals we set are often the easiest, and therefore sometimes the least significant, ones we can achieve.

Whilst questioning our own tactics, however, we also must question the positives of challenging the far right on their crusades.

Does engaging with the far right simply allow them to take control of the narrative and leave more ‘moderate’ conservatives space to say what they want without criticism?

It is a natural reaction to want to automatically attack the most conservative attacks we can find. When Loree Rudd says that there is a ‘gay Gestapo’, it is fair enough to be outraged and to want to have a go.

Yet, when we engage with her, we often give her, and other conservatives, breathing space to have their views herd.

This is a debate that climate activists have had to face for years as they question whether they should engage with climate change deniers or whether this simply gives them legitimacy they don’t believe.
Many in the climate movement are now beginning to engage with these deniers as they are seeing that they are receiving media time whether the movement engages with them or not and that by not engaging they are letting their arguments go unchallenged.

Yet for queer activists, we must ask whether people such as Loree Rudd would have received any media attention if we hadn’t reacted so strongly.

Sometimes it may be best for the queer movement to ignore the senseless rants of many on the far right and instead engage with the more ‘moderate’ commentators.

Next time you hear a far-right commentator say something outrageous, feel free to be outraged and say something about it – but don’t forget that we can’t let more ‘moderate’ conservatives use them as cover for their equally awful views.

Is Science Sacrosanct?

Originally published on ABC’s Drum on 22 July 2011.

Every good scientist will tell you that being critical is essential to the discipline’s survival. Scientists must be critical of both the results of their peers as well as the nature of experiments undertaken themselves.

This means when science comes under attack, scientists must be extraordinarily clever at retaining the ability to question their own field, whilst still defending it in the public.

Last week Greenpeace activists undertook the deplorable act of destroying a genetically modified wheat crop being grown by CSIRO scientists. The crop was being developed in order to better understand its makeup and potential effects.

The criticism of these actions provides a perfect case study of how scientists can remain critical of their field and protect their science at the same time.

There is no doubt that science has been under attack for a number of years now. Particularly in the field of climate change, the work of scientists is now more than ever being scrutinised and criticised by a sceptical public.

Wild claims about falsification and destruction of evidence are available in all newspapers, with some scientists even receiving death threats because of their work. This has left many demanding a fight back against anti-science warriors in an attempt to rebuild public trust in the field. For many, the attacks by Greenpeace on Thursday were clearly the last straw.

Greenpeace, who are, and should be considered, a ‘pro-science’ warrior were widely condemned for hypocrisy in destroying scientific experiments. Yet, the attacks on Greenpeace, while genuinely deserved, need to be questioned, particularly in the context of a scientific community who is beginning to ramp up their efforts to protect their field.

In defending its actions on Thursday in an e-mail sent to supporters, Greenpeace stated:

We love science. We live by science. But not all science is equal. Greenpeace has a long history of challenging commercial interests masqueraded as public science – scientific whaling and nuclear testing are prominent examples.

It is a point that makes sense. The ethical nature of scientific experiments has to be questioned and done so properly. Not all science is, as Greenpeace states, equal, and some should not be completed at all.

For example, very few people were willing to condone nuclear testing undertaken by the French, even though this was done under the auspices of finding out more about the effect of nuclear bombs. Protests against Japanese whaling are widely popular even though these hunts are conducted on a ‘scientific basis’.

At some point, we, as a society, must decide that there are lines that cannot and should not be crossed, even if they provide significant opportunities for an increase in our knowledge base. It is, with this in mind that Greenpeace destroyed these GM crops last week.

In destroying a scientific experiment, Greenpeace stated that they believed that GM was dangerous enough that we should not even be conducting scientific experiments into the practice. We should just leave it alone.

Yet, the responses by many on Thursday rarely dealt with this criticism and instead had an overtone that science is sacrosanct and all scientific endeavours should be protected at all costs. Destroying science is inherently bad.

As was stated on Twitter:

*All* violent attacks on science must be repudiated & stopped>> Greenpeace breaks into CSIRO site and destroys GM wheat http://bit.ly/qS7GRU

These arguments left very little room to question whether Greenpeace had any genuine concerns over the crops in question and if in this case, the science undertaken should have been done so in the first place? Such a framing of the debate can create a risk of pro-science advocacy losing the very critical nature of the field they were trying to protect itself and this is where anti-science organisations can capitalise.

To be able to properly defend science we need not only to be able to defend the discipline as a whole, but also defend the particular practices, experiments and reports, as well as be critical of or disown (if ever required) science that has not met with this standard. This is where climate scientists have suffered.

While the vast majority of climate science is clear in stating that the world is warming due to human activities, this fact has been brought down because of questioning of a few particular instances, which scientists have found difficult to defend in the public sphere. Through defending the specific science that has come under attack in this case, scientists may be able to deflect their detractors and create a stronger defence of their field.

Looking at the particular science that Greenpeace decided to destroy, for example, shows that through defending science not only in the general, but also in the specific, scientists are able to create a stronger defence of their field. It is through looking at the specifics that one can see how deplorable Greenpeace’s actions were.

These experiments were not the same as nuclear testing or scientific whale hunts. They were, however extremely controlled tests on a strain of wheat crop that has the potential to significantly help those with a range of different health problems. The flimsy way Greenpeace undertook the stunt gives the strongest indication of why this trial couldn’t have been as bad as Greenpeace has said.

@dr_krystal on Twitter asks a number of questions of Greenpeace to show that concern for human safety was not at the forefront of Greenpeace’s mind in this stunt. These questions included; ‘I wonder if @GreenpeaceAustP hired those whippersnippers? They look pretty industrial – how did they clean them after?’ and ‘What did @GreenpeaceAustP do to ensure it didn’t cause uncontrolled release of GM plants into the environment after WHIPPERSNIPPERING them?’, and ‘How can we be sure @GreenpeaceAustP action today hasn’t lead to the release of GM plants into environment? Where’s your documentation?’

What @dr_krystal shows was that either Greenpeace were either extremely clumsy or that it was not a real concern about the crop that lead to their activities. Either way it is clear that their actions were not due to a concern about human safety, but rather were a media stunt to bring attention to an issue that Greenpeace had clearly already made their mind up on, even before this science could come in.

In destroying this crop they not only broke the law, but set back scientific exploration into an important field for at least a year. All this was done for the sake of a media stunt.

The Greenpeace action last Thursday provides a great case study of how scientists can effectively respond to attacks on its field. It is a response such as this that has been lacking in many debates over the past years. Yet, we must also learn from the Greenpeace experience.

Science is not inherently sacrosanct and we cannot treat it as so. If we are not critical of this great field we face a potential problem of losing some of what is great about it.

We must defend science, but we also must do so cleverly and in a critical manner. It is only through doing so that we will ensure that high quality science is protected and cherished into the future.

The GLBTI bunch

Originally published in FUSE, June 2011

Around the world, GLBTI people are having increased influence on the political stage. More GLBTI people are now being elected to higher political positions, and in doing so are breaking down some of the barriers put up against queer people who want to enter the political field. Yet, as the number of GLBTI Parliamentarians increases, so does the challenges queer people face when they enter the political world.

The influence of GLBTI politicians is increasing. In 2009 Iceland elected Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir to the position of Prime Minister, becoming the first openly gay or lesbian head of Government in the modern era. In Australia, GLBTI politicians are breaking new heights every year. Australia now has an openly gay leader of major party (Bob Brown for the Greens), an openly lesbian Finance Minister (Penny Wong) and an openly gay deputy Chief Minister (Andrew Barr in the ACT).

Yet, our political system still places many barriers in front of people who want to get involved and be open about their sexuality. The stigma around homosexuality and politics is still extremely present, with many being forced to hide about their sexuality or face the continued hatred of many due to their sexual preferences.

Politicians in Australia are still expected to live up to the traditional family model to succeed. For example, Julia Gillard not being married has caused significant problems for her throughout her career, and talk about a potential future marriage is constantly popping up in the media. Some parts of the media and community seem constantly obsessed with the marital status of our politicians, as if that is an indicator of their abilities in the political world. It is still expected that politicians will be straight, married and to fit the traditional family mould.

In this context, GLBTI politicians face the fact that due to their sexuality they are unable to fit within the traditional family mould. Queer politicians often face intense discrimination in the political world, with rumours, innuendo and accusations about sexual misdeeds following them wherever they go. For example, the former majority leader of US House of Representatives, Dick Armey, once famously referred to influential gay Democrat, Barney Frank, as ‘Barney Fag’. For Frank, as with other queer politicians, his sexuality has followed him wherever his career has taken him.

It is only the GLBTI politicians that are able to conform in some way to traditional values about how they run their relationships that are able to, in some way, avoid this discrimination. You rarely see a GLBTI politician (or any other politician for that manner) who doesn’t face ongoing community or media discrimination, whilst not being in, or having plans to be in a long term, monogamous, relationship. The idea of bisexual politician for example, who is able to be active sexually with both men and women and still be successful, is simply impossible.

It is good to see GLBTI politicians rising in the ranks of the political field. Yet, we cannot expect that an increase in the numbers and power of these people will lead to significantly better results for queer people. GLBTI politicians are still required to play the role of the traditional family life to be able to enter the political elite and be successful and are therefore are unable to challenge the very nature of the heteronormative society through their political system. Whilst this is not a criticism of GLBTI politicians and lifestyle choices they make, if we are to support these politicians and the many others who wish to follow, we must not just do so through standing up for them in Parliament but through challenging the very nature of our political situation to remove the idea that there is one ideal ‘family mould’ that you have to confirm to to be successful.

What to do if it’s worse the Workchoices

Originally published in New Matilda on 2 June 2011 (http://newmatilda.com/2011/06/02/what-do-if-its-worse-workchoices).

As Barry O’Farrell prepares to get stuck into the entitlements of public sector workers in NSW, what lessons can be gleaned from the recent surge in union action in the US, asks Simon Copland

This February, tens of thousands of union activists took to the streets of Madison, Wisconsin to protest a budget bill proposed by Republican Governor Scott Walker.

Walker argued his budget was essential to reduce the state’s deficit. Controversial measures included capping wage increases, requiring State employees to contribute 5.8 per cent of their salaries to cover pension costs and putting another 12.6 per cent towards health care premiums.

The bill was also set to weaken worker’s rights — essentially eliminating collective bargaining rights for State employees. On top of the cap on wages increase, other measures include requiring collective bargaining units — unions — to take annual votes to maintain certification. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and contracts for state employees would be limited to one year, with wages frozen until the new contract is settled.

Sound familiar? In NSW, Barry O’Farrell has tabled legislation which will limit the rights of public sector workers in ways that Paul Howes described as “worse than WorkChoices”. It looks likely that the union movement in NSW will mobilise against O’Farrell’s new industrial relations laws with talk of industrial actions. Are there lessons to be learned from the Wisconsin experience?

Wisconsin’s legislature is dominated by Republicans and initial forecasts predicted that the protests would be a blip in the history of the state. Workers would take to the street, organise a couple of protests, and ultimately yield once the bill was passed. How wrong these predictions were. Walker’s budget proposals were met with nation-wide protests.

The first protest led to more actions. Soon, activists were taking to the streets daily, climaxing in massive rallies that attracted over 100,000 activists at the end of February and in the beginning of March. In a dramatic escalation, all Democratic Senators from Wisconsin left the state in an attempt to deny the chamber a quorum to vote on the bill. It was this move that brought the union fight to a national stage, setting off a national debate and similar protests around the country.

Similar protests erupted in New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Maine, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho and Indiana. The energy of the Wisconsin movement spread around the country, bringing with it activists who were willing to take to the streets to defeat a string of anti-union bills.

The Wisconsin Republicans were forced to use a technicality to bypass the quorum requirements and the bill was eventually passed. In spite of this, the movement is continuing to grow.

The unions have been using two methods to continue to campaign against the attacks on workers. First, they have taken the fight to the ballot box. With the ability to recall elected members in Wisconsin and Michigan and legislation in Ohio, unionists are running massive recall drives. Essentially these are petitions which force re-election of a sitting member, or take a piece of legislation back to the ballot box. In Wisconsin, they have successfully forced the re-election of six Republican Senators (a net gain of three seats is required to take back the House).

In Michigan, a petition-drive has been initiated to force the re-election of Republican Governor Rick Snyder. In Ohio, unionists look certain to force legislation restricting collective bargaining rights to a vote later in the year.

Second, unionists are campaigning on the ground for a growth in union membership and activity in the workplace, as well as influence in the lead up to the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. After years of falling union membership and declining union power, one of the biggest unions in the US, the Service Employees International Union, has dedicated significant resources to building a campaign on the back of the momentum built in Wisconsin. The campaign, Fight for a Fair Economy, is focused on key economic issues, raising the profile of the union movement and making an argument for increased union involvement in the American political system.

The campaign is using upcoming national flash points, such as corporate shareholder meetings, the presidential debates and the Party Conventions to raise the profile of the movement.

The strategy has a lot in common with the Your Rights at Work campaign mounted by Australian unions in response to WorkChoices. Your Rights At Work achieved the defeat of both the Howard government and WorkChoices. But the campaign has not driven many long-term benefits for the Australian union movement. Since the passage of the Fair Work Bill, union membership has again declined, although a few unions are bucking the trend. Further industrial relations reform is nowhere to be seen on the political agenda and O’Farrell’s mooted changes show how easily ground can be lost.

Australian unions can build on the American experience. Although the American movement is focusing heavily on the election of new Democrats to defeat anti-union bills, they are also mounting an on-the-ground campaign to win people over to the importance of unionism itself. Using the momentum of the Wisconsin protests, they have initiated a national discussion on key economic issues and the value of unions in society.

Unions in the United States may have few other options when it comes to asserting their agenda — there is not as strong an institutional alignment between the union movement and Democrats as there is between unions and the ALP in Australia. But doing what is necessary can also work in the interests of the movement. Australians unions can learn from this.

By initiating a broader discussion about broader economic issues and the role of unionism, American activists are acknowledging that they cannot rely only on politicians to get what they want. They must win the American people first. It is about time we had a real discussion about the value of unions in our society, one that is not just focused on specific policies and laws, but rather on the importance of unionism itself.

Obama goes the chop

Originally published in New Matilda on 14 April 2011. (http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/14/obama-goes-chop)

Obama the big spender has changed tack on his deficit reduction plans and has negotiated big cuts to pass his budget. It’s a risky strategy, writes Simon Copland

The first version of US President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget — announced way back in February 2010 — involved a $26 billion spending increase. Heavy investment would be poured into healthcare, high-speed rail, the environment and energy just to name a few.

As the negotiations came to a close however, and an agreement was reached last week, Obama was publicly celebrating a cut in spending over the rest of the fiscal year of $38.5 billion. The result was necessary, Obama claimed, as “beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect the investments that will help America compete for new jobs.”

This turnaround — from big spending to big cuts — leaves Obama with a fiscal policy debate that is being fought on Republican terms. And worse, he is fighting for cuts that could have negative impacts on the future of the American economy.

In his time in the White House, Obama has touted government investment as the key to the future economic success of the United States and as a solution to the global financial crisis. Concern for debt and deficit has been paramount since his original campaign, but Obama has fought to increase government spending in previous budgets and with his stimulus package.

This approach, Obama and many economists argue, allowed the United States to avoid the worst possible effects of the economic downturn and has saved hundreds of thousands of jobs over the last two years. This is also what many argue is still required to ensure a double-dip recession.

Recently, however, Obama has muddled this budgetary approach. He continued to campaign on government investment in the lead up to the 2010 midterm elections — but he also established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which late in 2010 recommended policies such as a $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending (including cutting the federal workforce by 10 per cent), tax increases and an overhaul of social security programs. Obama has now adopted some, but not all, of the Commission’s policies as part of his future budget plan.

Following this, in the lame duck 2010 Congress session, Obama negotiated a tax deal with Republican leaders that saw the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy — which have a significant impact on the deficit. Hitherto the expiration of these tax cuts had been a major plank in Obama’s plan to reduce the deficit.

On Wednesday, Obama went back to this plan in his announcement of a revised deficit reduction strategy — which included proposals to increase taxes for the rich and to implement $770 billion worth of spending cuts by 2023.

Obama stayed out of the limelight during the negotiations, allowing Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the public pitch. His attack focus was proposals put forward by the Republican congressional leadership — and in particular the policy riders designed to end funding to Planned Parenthood and to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gasses.

This aggressive strategy is a politically viable way to approach a budgetary fight. By campaigning against the cuts Republicans were proposing instead of focusing on their own proposals, Democrats were able to paint a picture of an extreme opposition all set to eliminate women’s rights and stall climate action. Democrats could then claim that through skilful negotiations they had been able to stop Republicans from implementing this extreme agenda. At the same time they could campaign about the effects of cuts and benefits of programs in their local communities.

This strategy becomes more difficult to implement now that Obama has turned to large spending cuts himself.

Through becoming an advocate for spending cuts, Obama opens up many potential lines of attack: “If cutting spending is so important, why didn’t he do it earlier?” Voters may well wonder why cutting spending was not in his original 2011 budget proposal. They may ask whether this proves the Republicans were right all along. Did Obama take the country down two years of irresponsible fiscal policy that actually harmed the economy instead of helped it?

It won’t be easy to be the president who is cutting spending programs he announced only recently. Compounding the difficulties, Obama now faces a Republican opposition who are far fiercer than he is when it comes to cutting spending. If Obama’s mooted budget cuts are big, the Republicans have much bigger slices in mind. In a budgetproposal released recently, Republican Paul Ryan called for dramatic cuts in health spending, including the abolition of Medicare in favour of private insurance vouchers. Ryan is showing that if cuts in spending are what the American people want, it is the Republicans who really know how to administer them.

If his spending cuts end up harming the economy, Obama will wind up with egg on his face. With the American economy still extremely fragile, cuts the size Obama and Republicans negotiated may well have a negative impact and cause big job losses. The buck will stop with the sitting president in the mind of the American public, worrying given the looming 2012 election.

Polling shows that Americans are supportive of the Democrats’ budget strategy so far. Still, Obama must be careful when he claims $38.5 billion in spending cuts as a victory. If he continues down the path he is following, Obama risks shifting the debate back to a Republican base, leaving open the question “why have a phony budget cutter in the White House, when you can have a real one?”

Fighting in a man’s sport

Originally published in FUSE Magazine, February 2011

Bianca Elmir Is Fighting in a Man’s Sport. Kickboxing isn’t a sport one often associates with women and 2012 will be the first year women are allowed to compete in it the Olympics. Yet, one Canberran hasn’t been deterred by the male dominance of the game.

Bianca Elmir has been kickboxing for ten years, boxing for two years and was recently crowned the Oceania boxing champion. With this title under her belt, she now has her sights set on London. As she heads into the next phase of her career, Simon Copland had a chat with this rising Canberran star.

What is it about kickboxing that draws you to the sport? 

I think there are many layers to my attraction to boxing. Originally it was about having a channel to put my energy into. My previous kickboxing coach tells a story of how I entered the gym and announced that my soccer coach thinks that I should choose a sport where I am allowed
to hit people!

Since then it has become a lifestyle for me — I’ve made lots of friends at my gym and it’s become my little hub. I now see my training and sport as an art form — it is like other martial arts, a dance where every intricate move put together at the right time can produce something beautiful.

What’s it like being a woman in such a male dominated sport? 

Boxing has been described to me as ‘leather and lace’ — which for me is exciting! I like pushing social norms, so the fact that it’s so “out there” is cool!

However, there are some drawbacks with being in such a small minority. For instance, it’s really hard to find matches in Australia, especially at my weight division. There are a lot of promoters who will hesitate to put you on their shows because they think that it won’t bring the crowds even if it’s in your own town. And as a woman you are less likely to be paid to fight even if you are as good as or better than your male counterparts.

Of course many people still have the attitude the ring is not a place for females. Being the only female in my gym, you have to have thick skin and put up with some pretty awful jokes, but I like that larrikin environment.

You recently became the Oceania champion and are now looking towards the Olympics — what’s it going to take to get you there? 

Winning the Oceania championship was a real turning point in my career. It was my first international competition to be in and win. The fight also proved to me that I had the ability to aim further and I haven’t looked back since.

I think being able to compete in the Olympics is the ultimate. Of course it’s about patriotism but beyond that it is about setting high goals and reaching them. The Olympics is one high goal! This will be the very first time that Women’s boxing will feature in the Olympics too so that also makes it really exciting.

I am really lucky to be living in Canberra because I have found so much support here from the community, including people at my workplace who put up with a lot. In terms of getting support so that I can train properly and look after my body, Crust Pizza have backed me a hundred per cent and I have had really good management from Martin Hodgeson — all these elements, including hard work, I believe will get me to the Olympics.

I hope that I can get a medal for Australia.

Punch him in the ring

Originally published in FUSE, February 2011. 

The scene is set. A group of young, sweaty, beaten men, stand in a dark, damp basement. The sound of dripping water pulsates through air. Brad Pitt addresses the crowd. “The first rule of fight club”, he says “is that no one talks about fight club”. “The second rule of fight club is that no one talks about fight club”.

As Pitt concludes, the men begin to fight. Without any rules of engagement, the battle sees men beat each other to a bloody pulp with their bare hands. It doesn’t matter how far you go, as long as you don’t talk about it when you get home.

Around the world, groups of young and old men are living up to the Fight Club spirit. Meeting in gyms, halls and basements, gay men are coming together to engage in the ancient art of boxing.

Whilst these clubs are not secret (although some people might not tell people they participate) and they’re no run Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, they are, just like in Fight Club, a place where men can punch through their personal and societal barriers.

This is the world of gay boxing. We asked Andrew Georigiou, a gay bloke who boxes in Sydney, if he would give us an insight into what it is that draws him, and many other gay guys into boxing.

“I love the empowerment. There is nothing like the feeling of boxing…it’s a constant sweat-fest. What’s not to love about guys getting sweaty together?”

Andrew is the brains and brawn behind ‘Punch Him in the Ring’ – a gay boxing club run in Sydney, designed to teach men about traditional boxing techniques. About ten men join the group each week, with a professional trainer teaching skills such as footwork, and the correct way to throw, block and duck punches.

“Don’t be mistaken; this is no “boxercise” class that you’ll see at your local gym. When these guys enter the ring, they aren’t holding back,” says Andrew.

This isn’t the kind of sport that most people would associate with gay men – a rough and brutal game – yet, these and many other men don’t actually fit that ‘gay men are all effeminate and soft’ stereotype.

“We get all sorts of gay guys who want to box – camp, butch, twink, femme and masculine men. It becomes a place where everyone can be themselves, make new friends and learn a sensational sport and good fighting skills,” says Andrew.

It is the fight against discrimination, bullying and stereotyping that leads many guys to join these clubs. Boxing has a long history of homophobic discrimination. In 2002, Mike Tyson famously yelled at a reporter, “I’ll fuck you till you love me, faggot!”, making it clear that he didn’t think gay men were welcome in the boxing ring.

Unfortunately the discrimination isn’t limited to the taunts of Tyson. Gay men have always been the subject of teasing about the inability to fight, both in and outside the ring. The idea of a gay fighter is foreign in mainstream society.

It is the ability to break free from homophobia and stereotypes that makes boxing appealing to Andrew Georigiou.

“I was frustrated to read about victims of homophobic violence, unprovoked and random assaults. I made a decision to empower myself and others,” Andrew says.

These clubs are about empowerment; boxing provides a social, physical and political outlet for a growing number of gay men. It is an opportunity for men to fight back, not just against homophobic attacks, but also the discrimination and stereotyping that says a gay man can’t fight. Most of all however, boxing provides men win an opportunity to participate in a great sport, to get fit and to have a lot of fun.

2010 – A year in review

Originally published in FUSE, December 2010

It is the end of another year. With a Federal Election, growing momentum from the queer movement and political and legal changes around the world, 2010 has been momentous. As the year comes to the end, it is worth looking back on some of the major events, victories, losses and changes of 2010.

So, here it goes; a brief summary of the queer year of 2010.

Australia

2010 was a unique year in Australian political history.

With a Federal Election in August, 2010 brought with it dramatic changes to the shape of Australian politics. In late 2009 Tony Abbott was elected as the leader of the opposition in a somewhat unprecedented coup. That was until June, when Julia Gillard swiftly knifed Kevin Rudd for the leadership of the ALP. Three weeks later, Gillard called the Federal Election. These dramatic changes brought with them a dramatic result, as Australians elected the second hung parliament in our history – leading to the ALP forming a minority Government.

This election was also historic for the efforts of many in the queer movement, in particular those working for marriage equality. The 2010 federal election saw queer activists mobilise around marriage equality in a targeted and effective manner. In particular, Marriage Equality Australia targeted the inner city seats such as those held by ALP members Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Lindsay Tanner in order to get marriage equality onto the national agenda. This saw the queer activists mobilise within friendly areas to demand change; something which added to the momentum around the country of those demanding change.
There were also two other elections in Australia this year. In South Australia, the Labor Government was returned with a reduced majority. In Tasmania, the ALP was also re-elected, but only with the support of the Greens, who took two cabinet positions.

2010 also brought some significant institutional changes within Australia.

In March the New South Wales Government set an international precedent by officially recognising Norrie May-Welby as neither male nor female. The success was short lived however; as May-Welby was forced to take the case to Human Rights Commissioner after the decision was revoked by the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. There has yet to be a resolution to May-Welby’s challenge.

Concurrently, the chief defence force of Australia ordered that the ban on transgender people serving in the defence force be lifted.

On the 29th of September, Tasmania passed a bill recognising all legal same-sex marriages performed outside Tasmania.

Issues around coming out made it into the headlines in the middle of 2010 as two major stories stirred debate around the difficulties queer people face when coming out. It all began when AFL player Jason Akermanis wrote a newspaper column arguing that any gay players should refrain from coming out as the league wasn’t ready for it. This was followed a few days later by the public outing of NSW transport minister David Campbell, when Seven News showed footage of him leaving a gay sex club.

Of course, on top of all of this activity there were the many pride events, the Mardis Gras and the regular ACT SpringOut Event. These events, along with many others around the country continued to bring people from all parts of the Australian community together to celebrate and take pride in the diversity and strength of the ‘queer community’.

International

There have been many significant political and community based changes around the world in 2010.

Both the UK and US saw significant changes in 2010 as elections took their countries back to the right. In the UK, elections in May brought a Coalition comprising of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to power.

In November, Republicans took control of the US House of Representatives and gained extra seats in the Senate to create a significantly different new political climate for the next two years.

There have also been significant changes on many legal fronts for queer people. The most important of these has been the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Fiji. This move brings the number of countries where homosexuality is illegal down to 79.

On the marriage front, Portugal, Argentina, Mexico City and Iceland all passed same sex marriage legislation. Iceland was particularly momentous as the countries Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, became one of the first to utilise the legislation marrying her partner Jónína Leósdóttir.

Whilst it technically didn’t happen in 2010, Pakistan made headlines early in the year by legally recognising hijra as an official third gender. This occurred after a supreme court challenge was upheld, making Pakistan one of only a few nations to recognise more than two genders.

In the US, two major court cases saw momentum build around Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. In September a judge ordered that DADT was unconstitutional. Whilst this has yet to be acted on, it has brought with it significant momentum that could easily result in the overturning of the policy. Almost simultaneously, a judge in California declared that proposition 8, the legislation that made same-sex marriage illegal in the United States was unconstitutional. This is a move that could result in the overturning of all same-sex marriage bans in the United States.

These positive results however, were still unfortunately matched by some serious negative issues.

The issue of queer mental health was also brought to attention in the United States after the suicide of Tyler Clementi after two of his roommates streamed footage of him having sex with another man on the Internet. This was the most high profile of a string of suicides from young people who had been bullied in one way or another. Following it, columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry launched the “It Gets Better Project”; a YouTube channel designed to help young queer people get through difficult times.

In Malawi two men were arrested after they held an engagement ceremony in December. After a well publicised trial, which was strongly condemned around the world, the men were eventually sentenced to 14 years imprisonment with hard labour.

2011

So, there it is – a brief story of the queer year of 2010. Whilst I’ve missed plenty of activity that’s happening around the world I hope this story paints a picture of a movement that is growing stronger, but still has lots to do.

I must acknowledge that we cannot look at these changes in isolation. Changes to legislation or advances in debate are only useful if they are met with other changes around the world. For example, there’s no point to having marriage equality, when our queer friends in Uganda face the death penalty for being out, while our trans* friends lack access to appropriate healthcare and other services because their government doesn’t recognise their gender, while kids in schools all across the world are bullied for not living up to sex/gender stereotypes. As we look back at these victories therefore, let’s remember that issues such as marriage equality are only one part of the significant changes needed in our society to create a fair and more just world.

What to expect in 2011? Who knows, but as the queer movement gets stronger, more changes to our society can only follow in the years to come.

Queer mental health

Originally published in FUSE, November 2010

On the 22nd of September, Tyler Clementi, a young man studying music at Rutgers University, walked up to the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey and then threw himself to his death. He did so only days after two of his roommates’ streamed footage of him having sex with another man live on the internet.

This tragic loss was just one of many high profile incidents over recent years. With it, the issues of queer bullying, mental health issues for queer people and the extremely high rate of suicide for queer people has once again been highlighted as issues needing urgent attention.

Growing up as a young queer man it very quickly became clear that depression was simply part of life for many queer people. For me, it began largely after I came-out as the realisation that I was living in a world where some did not accept me became a reality. With it came an immense feeling of sadness that most of the time I did not understand.

However, I was one of the lucky ones. My family was nothing but supportive and overall my friends were great too. Many people I knew however were not so lucky. Some had family that rejected them outright, others had friends who bullied them; many suffered from both. For many this lead to severe depression; a sense and feeling of being alone and isolated from a world that didn’t accept you. For some this escalated into attempted suicide (I am lucky to have never known someone who has committed suicide).

The statistics around queer mental health issues are stark. A research scoping paper commissioned by the national depression initiative, Beyond Blue, in December 2008 found that same-sex attracted people, in particular women, are the most susceptible group to depression and suicide in our community. According to the study, in any twelve month period, approximately 42% of queer people suffer from some form of mental illness (this includes affective disorders, anxiety and substance abuse), compared to fewer than 20% of heterosexual-identifying people.

The realities are the worst for young people. According to the paper, some studies show that more than 50% of young queer people have suffered from severe anxiety or depression, with approximately 42% of young queer people attempting suicide at some point in their life. The study found that young gay men were 3.7 times more like to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts; a figure that increases for same-sex attracted women and even more for bisexual people.*

Yet, even with such strong statistics, and despite increasing attention being put onto mental health issues, queer mental health has often been forgotten as an issue needing attention. Whilst many have spent decades putting huge amounts of work providing support services and running campaigns to end discrimination, funding has continued to be short and no national organisation has put any major resources into addressing the problem.

There are even reports that Beyond Blue, Australia’s largest mental health organisation has repeatedly ignored the queer mental health crisis. After re-releasing its issues paper ‘Mental Health, Depression and Anxiety in Same-Sex Attracted People’ in June 2009 (after initially releasing the report in January 2008) criticism began to flow that the organisation wasn’t doing anything to address the problem. In June 2009, queer activist Rob Mitchell argued that Beyond Blue had only released their initial report after significant pressure from queer activists and even after releasing the report they continued to refuse to put money into addressing the problem.

Even now, neither Beyond Blue, nor any other major mental health organisation, has any major projects or campaigns addressing this issue. Whilst small scale work continues from committed people across the country, there is a lack of resources to aid any form of national campaign. Whether these organisations will conduct these campaigns in the future is yet to be seen.

There are clear reasons why some queer people suffer from mental health issues more than their straight counterparts. Evidence shows that there are clear and obvious links between social stigmatisation, discrimination and isolation and mental health problems. Whilst official discrimination is now limited in Australia, there is still a high level of low-level queerphobia in the country; something that has a clear effect on many queer people.

What is unclear however is why, given the serious nature of queer mental health problems, the issue has continued to be ignored. Whilst one could easily say that it is a case of queerphobia from mental health organisations and those who fund them, there is not clear evidence that this is the case (although it much be considered a factor). It is possible that the most prominent reason for the lack of action on this issue is that tackling queer mental health issues requires a lot more work than awareness raising and providing easily accessible treatment options. Tackling queer mental health problems requires tackling the high levels of low-level queerphobia that exists in our society, particularly that targeted at young people. Possibly more than any other mental health issue, queer mental health problems require an approach that is focused on preventative health – it is not until we tackle discrimination that we are going to be able to solve the queer mental health crisis.

This has been a problem for the mental health lobby for a number of years. In the initial stages of what is becoming the mental health revolution, campaigns and funding have been focused on awareness raising, service delivery and treatment. This unfortunately forgets that a large percentage of mental health problems are preventable with the right proactive measures. In some cases this means giving people access to services such as youth groups where they are able to discuss issues in their lives, whilst for others it means tackling some of the serious social issues that still dominate our society. In cases such as queer mental health, this means tackling queerphobia within our society and particularly within our schools. This is a difficult task. Anti-discrimination campaigns require devotion to longer term change, rather than finding short term solutions. Campaigns such as this would be hard to measure and somewhat difficult to implement. The long term solutions however, would see the results we so desperately need.

However, the unfortunate reality is that there is a queer mental health crisis; a crisis that is predominately caused by the way our society operates. Tackling this crisis therefore does not just mean investing in treatment programs, but rather preventative programs aimed at ending discrimination and social stigmatisation.

If we don’t begin to tackle this problem we will continue to be shocked and saddened by deaths such as Tyler Clementi’s. I know I don’t want to live in a society where anybody feels as though they have to do what Clementi did, but I am sure that until we tackle the queer mental health crisis these sorts of stories will continue.

* Note: The Beyond Blue study was based on a literature review. This meant that some statistics were unavailable due to a lack of research and not all statistics presented are from Australia. The study can be found at: http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=4.1255

Election 2010: Where to from here?

Originally published in FUSE, October 2010

The 2010 federal election campaign could be summarised by one key criticism; it was boring.

The stage managed campaigns focusing on style over substance (or at least that’s how the media reported it) drew criticism from all quarters. Politics was seen to have hit its shallowest point. At one point former Liberal leader John Hewson stated that the contest was like the South Park episode, where there was a choice of ‘picking between a douche and a turd’.

It is no wonder then that the result ending up being one of the closest in Australian history. For the first time since the Second World War, Australia ended up with a hung parliament.

With the ALP on 72 seats, the Coalition on 73 (including a WA National) and 5 cross benchers (1 Green and 4 independents); the post election period saw not only intense negotiations to see who would form the next Australian government, but also intense about the nature of Australian politics. After 17 days the ALP was able to form Government with the support of four of the five cross benchers. For this support the ALP committed to a range of new policy measures, including the establishment of a climate change committee (with the Greens), the move for a national denticare scheme (with the Greens), changes to pokies regulations (with Andrew Wilkie), a regional Australia package (from Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor) and a parliamentary reform agenda aimed at giving power back to individual members of parliament.

Yet in the midst of all of these changes, criticisms of this new situation flew fast from all corners. Apparently the time it took for decisions to be made was creating political and economic instability. The new situation was also extremely undemocratic as the views of five electorates were now going dominate over the views of the rest of the country.

Many seemed unable to make up their minds. Whilst they wanted more substance in our political debate during the campaign, when it arrived, complaints arose that those who were bringing the substance should not be in the power to do so (as the country didn’t elect these cross-benchers). Apparently the independents should have just fallen in line with what their electorates and/or the country (based on 2 party preferred or primary vote depending on who you listened to) wanted. Now, instead of substance we wanted ‘stability’ instead.

What many have forgotten is how exciting this new situation is. Within one election cycle we have moved from two party system where similarities in policy are more common that differences to one where any Government will be required to genuinely negotiate with the Parliament and the people of Australia to have their policy platform implemented. In the time that we needed to wait for stability, we saw more substantive debate about Australian democracy and public policy than did throughout the entire election campaign. Finally, the substance has been brought back.

This has already resulted in fantastic outcomes. In the negotiation period following the election more significant policy changes had occurred in some areas than over the last number of years. The changes to parliamentary procedures would have been good enough, but the implementation of the new policy agenda from the cross benches will bring significant positive changes.

Hung parliaments bring great outcomes to parliaments around the world and will do so in Australia as well. After complaining about the lack of it for so long, policy substance has finally been brought back into our political system. Instead of finding the negative therefore, we should be looking at the positive outcomes this situation is going to bring. It is what we asked for and it will deliver.