Simon Copland

Last weekend saw a huge moment in Australian politics. After being reduced to a rump in the 2012 election the ALP finalised their triumphant return to Queensland Government.

On the other side of the world there was another momentous occasion. In line with Global Divestment Day, the three major parties of the United Kingdom (the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats) signed a joint pledge to to phase out coal use.

These two moments may seem thousands of kilometres apart, but happening on the same weekend, they are in fact extremely close.

While the UK was pledging to phase out coal, the Queensland Government already started to face pressure over major coal projects in the state. As quickly as their election was declared Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt stated he was holding off on approvals for two large coal developments — the new Acland Coal Mine and the Abbot Point Coal Terminal. The two projects have both been extremely controversial (for different reasons) and Hunt’s position immediately places pressure on the ALP Government to act soon. The question is, what will they do?

So far the ALP has made some right noises over these projects. After it was revealed the company behind the Acland Coal Mine donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the LNP the new Government promised to scrutinise the process that led to its approval. Up north and the ALP has vowed to remove all Government financial support for the Abbot Point Development. These moves are likely to delay the construction of these two projects, putting their development into further doubt.

Yet, while these moves are good, it is time for the ALP to go further.

For years now the ALP have heralded themselves as the champions of our climate, and more recently of our Great Barrier Reef. In passing a carbon price in federal Parliament the party positioned itself as the only party acting on the science of the issue, calling the LNP deniers and climate vandals. We saw this play out in Queensland, in particular around the Reef. The ALP ran hard on Reef issues, with the issue seen to have played a large role in their winning numerous inner city Brisbane seats.

Yet, when it comes to the crunch, the ALP still supports the construction of these projects. If seen through their policies will at best delay construction, with the impacts on the Reef and climate still being felt.

The time for that support has to come to an end. As climate change continues to accelerate the ALP can no longer claim to respect the science while continuing to dig up coal. Delays are no longer good enough. If the party is serious about protecting the climate and the reef it will seriously look at ending the mining and export of this commodity for real.

Around the world global leaders are taking up this challenge. On top of the UK commitment in recent years we’ve seen China place a cap on coal usage, while India has increased taxes on coal mined or imported into the country. In the United States President Barack Obama has placed restrictions on pollution from coal fired power plants and looks likely to soon reject the Keystone XL Pipeline, a significant shift away from the fossil fuel industry.

The Queensland ALP has the opportunity to join this global trend. Moving on their election platform straight away would be a good start. But the party needs to do more. The Abbot Point Coal Terminal and Acland Coal mine, along with other coal projects in the state, should simply not be built. They are not good for our economy, our Reef and more importantly our climate.

The opportunity is there. It’s time for the ALP to finally take it.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

It has been a bad week for Australian political leaders.

In one week, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has lost his job, Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles has fended off an attempted coup and Prime Minister Tony Abbott has seen his political future slip out from underneath him.

What is going on? Australia has become a nation of ‘leaderside’. We dispose of leaders almost as quickly as they rise to power, quickly blaming them for anything that goes wrong with a government. Kevin Rudd and Campbell Newman were too arrogant and Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott simply had no political intelligence. Yet the real problem doesn’t lie with individual leaders but with our concept of leadership itself.

Over the past decade our society has entered what some call a ‘crisis of politics’. As the social bases of our major political parties have been decimated, so has their authority within society. Politicians have become heavily distrusted, with assumptions they are all deceitful and only in it for their own power. Those who run against the political establishment are quick to gain popularity. Nowhere is this trend greater it seems than in the way we treat political leaders.

A bit of context here. Over the past decades our society has become more obsessed with ‘leaders’. Connected to our neoliberal focus on the individual, we have placed more faith in ‘leaders’ to provide solutions for our social and political problems. Gary Gemmill and Judith Oakley call this our ‘great leadership myth’ — the idea that our organisations, institutions, and broader society, require great leaders to survive. Without a leader we are helpless.

Nowhere can we see this more than in our politics. Over the past few decades, Australia has trended more towards a ‘presidential’ style of politics — one where the focus is placed heavily on the leader of a party instead of on their politics or policies. We focus our attention almost solely on our party leaders, giving them unprecedented power.

The problem with this, as Gemmill and Oakley argue, is that it de-skills and de-mobilises those around leaders — from their political colleagues to the mass population. This is why we see constant complaints from backbenchers that party leaders are not consultative enough. The leadership myth removes power from the masses and to provides it to an elite few.

Herein lies the crux of why we seem to be facing a new leadership crisis every few months.

As leaders have been given more power they have also become more disconnected from those around them(and importantly from the general population). Look at what is causing Abbott’s leadership woes — concerns he has completely lost touch with the general population and that he is not consultative enough with his party. In the past leaders used to be able to get away with this disconnection as they had a strong social base to back them up. But as these social bases have been hollowed out and the crisis in politics has begun it has become clearer who these leaders represent. Hence we’ve lost our patience — disposing of leaders as quickly as possible.

And herein lies the final contradiction.

Even while the realities of who our leaders represent have become more apparent, the leadership myth has still remained dominant. As our politics trudges through its crisis we have continued to search for a new leader who can save it.

As these crises intensify however we should be heading in a different direction. Around the country, political parties are tearing themselves apart and instead of hoping that the next person may save them, we should be looking at alternatives. This can mean looking at more cooperative forms of democratic decision making, to removing our obsession with party leaders to instead focus on the team of players. It means recognising that leaders are simply a figurehead and that in fact real change comes from all of us.

There can be no doubt that people are sick of the constant speculation and fighting about leadership within our major political parties. But the solutions often provided wont actually deal with this issue. The focus remains on the issue of leadership itself, when it is other alternatives we should be exploring.

In placing all our faith in leaders – in buying into the myth – we have removed ourselves from ownership in our political process. We have allowed others – those with vested interest in the elite – to make decisions for us, and with the expected consequences. It is essential that we start doing that experimentation – getting rid of our focus on leaders and looking to other forms of political organising.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

Pope Francis is at it again. The often straightforward Pope this week took aim at family planning practices within the church, stating:

“Some think, excuse me if I use the word, that in order to be good Catholics, we have to breed like rabbits – but no.”

With the imagery of the Monty Python song “Every Sperm is Sacred”, intervention on family planning issues is certainly welcome. Pope Francis has explicitly given Catholics license to be more proactive around the issue, challenging many conservative ideals of the need for a large family.

Look a little closer, however, and it is all smoke and mirrors. While the Pope is talking strong on family planning, the practices and policies of the church are still not changing at all.

To get an understanding of this, it’s best to look at the reason for the Pope’s comments. Francis made his remarks after a visit to the Philippines, where the Catholic Church has been fighting Government legislation that provides easy access to birth control methods. The bill mandates Government health centres to distribute free condoms and contraceptive pills, and was challenged in a Supreme Court Battle at the start of last year. On his visit, Pope Francis backed the local Church in their fight.

The Pope has therefore continued to oppose some of the most effective methods available for proper family planning. The Church still argues the best form of family planning is ‘natural contraception’ — or in other words abstinence. People should just stop having sex, in particular during a woman’s ovulation period.

It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

The use of contraception has been well noted as an effective form of family planning. While not a sole solution, contraceptions can play a role in providing women in particular agency over their sexual choices.

Worse however, lack of access to contraception has strong connections to the spread of HIV/AIDs. Research out of South Africa, for example, has shown that increasing use of condoms has been the major cause in the drop in HIV infections. Research from 2012 showed the level of new HIV infections had dropped in the country by half since 1999. The research directly connected the drop with increasing condom usage.

Interestingly the research also said that many of the reasons for the lack of condom use in the country was cultural. Black South Africans in particular, who represented the largest percentage of infections in the country,had strong cultural disconnections with condom use. As that culture changed, so HIV infection rates went down.

This is where the Catholic Church comes into play. Through much of Africa and Asia the Catholic Church has played a major role in challenging contraception use. The Philippines for example has seen a strong culture of opposition to the use of condoms and other contraceptives, which many have warned could result in the spread of HIV/AIDS. The country is now 8th in the world for infections with the illness.

This is the unfortunate reality for the Pope. Since his appoint Francis has done all he can to position himself as the Pope for the poor. He has taken on massive issues such as economic inequality, climate change and even relations between The United States and Cuba. But in the here and now, no issue is bigger for many poorer countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, than the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The disease continues to rip the heart out of places, decimating an entire generation and leaving those behind far worse off.

In his comments the Pope raised concern the beliefs within the Church around family planning are hurting people’s health, and in turn the broader community. In doing so he showed a willingness to challenge the Church’s practices in order to look after its parishioners. I wonder why this doesn’t extend to people with HIV/AIDS? Telling people ‘not to breed’ is not good enough. If the Pope wants to be serious about family planning, and the health of his parishioners, he will look at challenging the Church’s position on contraception. Until that happens, his rhetoric is just empty words.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

“The life I would’ve lived isn’t worth living in … because I’m transgender.”

These were the words of Leelah Alcorn, who after posting a suicide note on her Tumblr, walked in front of a speeding truck in late 2014.

Alcorn’s suicide has triggered immense grief and anger. People in particular have directed rage at her parents, who refused to acknowledge her gender identity, and forced her to go to a Christian conversion camp. Noted sex columnist Dan Savage came out hard, stating her parents “threw her in front of that truck” and that “charges should be brought” against them.

This rage however seems extremely shallow. While leading figures such as Savage, who has in the past been accused of transphobia himself, have spoken out about Alcorn’s death, transphobia is still largely ignored by the mainstream gay and lesbian movement. While trans* people are always placed within the LGBT rainbow,their issues are normally placed at the bottom of the pile.

Transphobia is still rife within our society. Trans* people face discrimination in their every day life — fromlegislative discrimination and the denial of medical treatment to discrimination in the workplace and violence on the streets. Trans* people have extremely high suicide rates and face murders on a regular basis. Discrimination leads to high unemployment rates and in turn high levels of poverty. Trans* people are at the forefront of discrimination within our society.

Despite this, since the early days of the queer movement, where trans* people led the charge at the Stonewall Riots, they have in many ways been pushed aside. Holding much of the wealth and influence, gay and lesbian campaigners have been able to focus attention on issues that are paramount to them. In particular, recent decades have seen a focus on same-sex marriage — a campaign that has taken huge amounts of resources and attention, but does little to solve transphobic violence and discrimination.

Even worse, trans* people are often shafted when it suits gay and lesbian campaigners. In the United States for example, mainstream organisations actively excluded trans* people from negotiations around the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007. Groups advocated the removal of a reference to trans* people in the bill, believing it would make it more likely to pass. Closer to home, moves to legislate same-sex marriage at a state level led to trans* people being actively excluded from the legislation. Again this was an opportunistic move to get legislation passed. When it comes to the crunch, trans* people are always the first to be discarded by the mainstream gay and lesbian movement.

Of course there are a plethora of organisations who are working on trans* issues. Groups around the world are tackling discrimination, campaigning for trans* rights, and are providing support for trans* people who are having mental health issues or are in need of accommodation, work or healthcare. Each year the InternationalTransgender Day of Remembrance solidifies the call to fight against violence against trans* people.

But these groups largely sit at the margins, with trans* advocates told by mainstream organisations they need to wait their turn for progress. Gay and lesbian campaigners argue trans* people need to wait so we can fight the winnable battles first. It is only after we achieve steps such as same-sex marriage that we will be able to move on to the harder issue of transphobic discrimination and violence.

I wonder whether anyone had the courtesy of explaining that to Leelah Alcorn?

The reality is that while gay and lesbian activists focus on issues such as marriage, trans* people continue to die in our streets. This is the real story of Leelah Alcorn. She was not just denied her rights by her family and society, she was ignored by a movement that purports to stand up for her. She was the victim of being part of a community that pushed her aside. A victim of having no one to stand up for her.

In her suicide note, Alcorn stated:

“The only way I will rest in peace is if one day transgender people aren’t treated the way I  was, they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings and human rights. Gender needs to be taught about in schools, the earlier the better. My death needs to mean something. My death needs to be counted in the number of transgender people who commit suicide this year. I want someone to look at that number and say ‘that’s f***ed up’ and fix it. Fix society. Please.”

It is good that many in the LGBT community have heard Leelah’s call. It is good that this tragedy has made us look deeper into the issues facing trans* people. But unless this is followed with a major shift in focus from the LGBT movement this attention will just look like opportunism. It will look like a way to make noise about trans* rights while not actually doing any of the hard work to tackle the causes of transphobia.

Leelah Alcorn was a victim of our transphobic society. But she was also a victim of a movement who has ignored her for too long.

This is no longer acceptable.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

Last week, the British Parliament quietly banned a whole lot of porn. New legislation now forbids a range of sexual acts in porn produced and distributed in the UK – from spanking and aggressive whipping, to face-sitting and even female ejaculation.

While legislators have framed the bill as a way to “protect minors”, many have rightfully attacked it as a form of censorship, in particular targeting female pleasure. The inclusion of female ejaculation on the list has made this case extremely clear. How, one asks, is it okay for men to have the pleasure of ejaculating, while women are denied the enjoyment? And how exactly does a woman ejaculating harm children?

Look more closely at this list however — along with the very similar list that exists in Australia — and the legislation becomes much more insidious. This is not just about denying women’s right to pleasure, but about denying their right to power.

“With this legislation, the UK is in danger of finding itself back in an age where porn is simply the boring, unrealistic, male fantasy of bimbos eagerly pleasing men as if it is their duty, where women are submissive and lack ownership of their sexuality.”

The banning of face-sitting is a perfect example. Face sitting is the act of one partner, often fully clothed, literally sitting on the face of another. It is often practiced, particularly in porn, by dominant females, or dominatrixes. As Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces feminist porn describes: “its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable.”

These dynamics run throughout the sexual acts in the banned list. Spanking, caning, aggressive whipping, physical restraint and humiliation for example are all increasingly being used by dominant female performers to show their power over their male counterparts. Boutique and feminist porn production houses, which are growing in size and popularity, are increasingly using these acts to portray strong and powerful sexual women.

It is no wonder therefore that legislators have moved to ban these activities. In engaging in these acts, particularly in a public way, women are challenging a power system that has underpinned our society for centuries. Our capitalist society is based on a system of male domination over women. As men took control economically, they also did so domestically, subjugating women physically, economically and sexually.

While much of this subjugation has been challenged by feminist movements this culture and system is still dominant. One only needs to look at the ongoing horrific levels of sexual and domestic violence men perpetrate against women to see this. This violence is the horrific symbol of a culture of domination — a culture in which men are taught they have the right to control women sexually and physically however they please. A culture in which women are taught they must submit themselves to this dominance.

This is why the claim this legislation is about “protecting minors” is almost laughable. In banning these activities, this bill leaves porn to a mainstream depiction of male sexual domination. Award winning erotic film director, Erika Lust discusses the impact this bill will have on British porn:

“With this legislation, the UK is in danger of finding itself back in an age where porn is simply the boring, unrealistic, male fantasy of bimbos eagerly pleasing men as if it is their duty, where women are submissive and lack ownership of their sexuality.”

Mainstream pornography is designed to please men. It follows a basic formula: a women gives a man a blowjob, he fucks her and then he cums on her face. It is part of a culture that teaches men they have the right to pleasure whenever and however they want, and that it is the duty of women to provide that pleasure, no questions asked. And with children accessing porn at earlier ages, and often learning about sex directly through viewing porn, this is the culture they are being brought up in.

Instead of protecting children therefore this legislation actively harms them. It bans the porn that is challenging this system of domination, actively excluding alternative sexual practices and power systems from mainstream consciousness. In doing so it helps entrench a system of male domination, one that sees girls and women fall subject to physical and sexual violence on a daily basis.

Porn bans in the United Kingdom, and Australia, are not there to protect children. They are misogynistic attacks. They teach a standard of sex and sexuality that denies female pleasure and more importantly denies female power. These bans are not about protecting children, they are about oppressing women. The consequences will be real.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.

 “It’s an obvious conclusion that if you want to bring down your greenhouse gas emissions dramatically you have to embrace a form of low or zero-emissions energy and that’s nuclear, the only known 24/7 baseload power supply with zero emissions.”

When not promoting market solutions to climate change such as cap-and-trade, the right has often turned to technological silver bullets to solve the problem. The ideas are varied – from clean coal and capture and storage to geo-engineering. This is how many see nuclear power — a system that provides a silver-bullet to our energy problems.

These solutions are built on the ideals of technological utopianism — the idea that progress in science and technology will eventually be able to solve all of humankind’s problems. This has become the backbone of much of the debate around climate change, causing significant delays in finding a real solution to the problem.

While technically climate change is a scientific and technological problem, underlying this, the real cause is cultural and political. We pollute for a reason — to fuel an economy driven by an obsessive need to produce, consume and grow. We burn fossil fuels because, as a cheap and centralised energy source, they are the best at providing these needs. The fossil fuel industry works perfectly within a culture that values individualismand the domination of our environment — and it has built significant power to ensure this culture survives. We pollute because of our culture, not because of a technology.

While technological advances may look like solutions therefore, they are in fact ways to avoid the problem. We can see this clearly with nuclear power. Let’s skim over the fact that nuclear is dangerous, economically unviable and not even that good at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The real problem is that nuclear power tries to replace one centralised energy system (fossil fuels) with another. It is a distraction that ignores the culture of growth, production and consumption that is behind the crisis. In fact, as a highly centralised, environmentally dominating, and corporate controlled energy source, it is part of the problem, perpetuating the crisis rather than solving it.

It is no wonder Julie Bishop is so enthusiastic about it. With the Government facing increasing pressure on climate change, promoting nuclear can make it look like they’re acting when all they are doing is entrenching right-wing ideals.

But it is not just the right who have placed all their faith in a technological utopia, but the left as well. Some notable left-wing commentators for example have provided strong support for nuclear power, using many of the same arguments visible in right wing circles. But technological utopian ideals are mostly seen in a blind faith to renewable energy.

Renewables do not have many of the same problems as nuclear. Renewable energy by its nature must be decentralised, having a smaller impact on the environment, and also allowing for the democratisation of our energy system (if implemented properly). Yet the left’s faith in renewable power buys into the idea that technological change is the only solution required, not questioning the political and cultural causes behind the climate crisis. We see this particularly when the left connect renewables to ‘green jobs’ and ‘green growth’. This green capitalism makes for great political lines but actually entrenches the right-wing culture that caused the climate crisis in the first place.

It is no wonder that despite dropping costs renewable energy continues to struggle. Even though climate change provides us with the best available ammunition, the left has been too afraid to enter cultural or political battles required. We have tried to fit our solutions into our society’s dominant culture. This is never going to succeed when there are already technologies out there (i.e. fossil fuels) that sit better within this cultural frame.

No one should be surprised by Bishop’s latest foray into the nuclear debate. It is part of a long history of the right presenting technological ideas that look like climate solutions, but are in fact just opportunities for them to push their agenda. What is surprising is that the left that buys into this agenda just as heavily.

Nuclear is not now, nor never will be a solution to climate change. Let’s ignore the distraction and focus on the cultural and social changes needed to solve the problem.

This article was originally published on SBS News. Click here to view the original. © All rights reserved.