Wednesday, October 19, 2005

"You can't have your fruit-cake and eat it too"

The issue of gay-marriage seems to have bobbed up at Kate's site in the comments section of a recent post of hers.

It hasn't been missed by those eagle-eyed folk at Crikey either. It would appear that our government is in the business of picking and choosing exactly when same-sex couples are to be treated as 'close family members' and when they are not.

"Cough *hypocrisy* cough"

All are equal in the eyes of the (terror) law

By Christian Kerr


While the
draft terror laws are condemned as illiberal, let's recognise the importance of Section 105.32, Contacting family members etc.

It reads: “In this section: family member of a person means: (a) the person's spouse, de facto spouse or same-sex partner.

So... the same-sex partner of a terror suspect is recognised by the Government -– but not the same-sex partner of a member of the AFP, an ASIO officer or a soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Great one!

The
Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has jumped onto this one. It's issued a media release saying the inclusion of same-sex partners within the definition of family in the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 highlights the hypocrisy of the Howard Government's decision not to recognise same-sex relationships across all areas of federal legislation.

It points out that the move "“follows the inclusion of same-sex partner under the definition of '‘close family member' in the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2004."


At the same time, the GLRL says, the Government continues to refuse to recognise same-sex couples across a broad range of areas including superannuation, taxation, immigration, Medicare and health insurance and -– irony, irony -– defence and veterans' entitlements.


Who would want to be a gay-muslim-journalist under the proposed anti-terror legislation?

At least there's one voice of reason coming from the government in discussion of the proposed legislation.

"Abolishing SBS, stopping the teaching of languages other than English and banning burkas is not going to make us safer," Mr Georgiou said.

"On the contrary, I believe that our response to the threat of terrorism demands a strong commitment to multiculturalism in both principle and in practice."


Here, here Petro. If you ever get sick of being on the side of evil, I'm sure Kim or Bob could find a spot for you in their respective teams.

Update: Margo has republished Petro's speech in full here.


Listening to: Ben Harper - Live from Mars

3 Comments:

At 5:31 pm, Blogger Zézette said...

Heh, nothing like a bit of "terrorism" to bring us all together in a loving, egalitarian embrace, eh?

Just a small but fateful step onto the slippery scree that leads to the Dionysian abandon Canada recently adopted. We'll be legislating for mandatory matrimony with pets and voting rights for furniture next, you mark my words.

 
At 10:25 pm, Blogger mintox said...

No Petro, stay on the side of evil, you'll be wasted on the other side.

He can be our man on the inside.

 
At 4:17 pm, Anonymous tmz_99 said...

It's quite clear that the best way to figh terrorism is to encourage multi culturalism and in fact stop supporting the US and their heavy handed tactics.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home