Friday, June 09, 2006

The Australian - Wrong. Part 2,890,9990

The Australian published a quite amazing editorial yesterday regarding the federal government's decision to strike down a law in ACT that would have allowed same sex civil partnerships. I'll dissect it bit by bit (called fisking in the blogosphere I believe)...

'Howard's helper
Australia's tolerant society does not need gay marriage'

--> Excellent subheading there. Just like starting off a rant by saying 'I'm not racist BUT....'

'IN seeking to push through laws to allow gay couples to marry in all but name, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has handed John Howard a wedge issue that will bolster the Prime Minister's credentials with middle Australia.'

--> So John Howard is going to use this wedge issue to his advantage right?

'Few societies are as tolerant as this one when it comes to its citizens' private lives.'

--> What a society that prevents it's citizens entering into gay marriages in overseas countries? What could be more tolerant than that?

'Several states allow same-sex couples to adopt children, and Australians are relaxed about homosexuality.'

--> What even Mr Howard? Or the 36% of Australians who think homosexuality is 'immoral'?

'But while they support extending to gay couples the same property and inheritance rights that their married peers enjoy, most Australians draw the line at sanctifying gay relationships with the institution of wedlock.'

--> Do they? Who asked them? Is the Australian with a circulation of 140,000 representative of the Australian people?

'Recognising this political reality, Mr Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced on Tuesday that the commonwealth would intervene to veto the ACT's Civil Unions Act, passed in amended form last month.'

--> Bravo for Mr Howard! Win some bigot votes at the cost of dignity for gay people in Australia.

'The changes, which Mr Ruddock sought earlier this year, did not go far enough to alleviate Howard cabinet concerns that, under the law, gay civil unions and marriage would be the same.'

--> How dare gay people demand equal rights! Was John afraid that his marrage to Janet would collapse under the pressure of all those queers tying the knot? What a insecure man. Small man's syndrome surely.

'The commonwealth last intervened in territory law in 1997 when it scuppered the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. Two years ago, the federal Government won bipartisan backing when it sought to clarify that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.'

--> This is true and Labor should be ashamed for it's support in this.

'Mr Stanhope may have thought he was playing clever politics with his elite Canberra constituency when he determined to thumb his nose at this national consensus against gay marriage.'

--> What clever politics? Was he doing it deliberately so he received a landslide of queer votes in Canberra? Do that many gay people even live there? What about Howard's thumbing of his nose about Iraq, IR laws, the sale of Telstra - all reforms opposed by the majority of Australians? Ah, of course he was showing leadership! Mr Stanhope is playing clever politics. I see.

Instead, his grandstanding on same-sex unions has backfired badly and against the interests of homosexual couples.

--> Hang on. So he tried to reduce discrimination against gay people but this was somehow against their interests. What???

At the same time, he has helped boost Mr Howard's moral authority where it counts– with swinging voters.

--> Does someone gain moral authority by being discriminatory? It's Mr Stanhope who has the moral authority here. Not Little Johnny Cunt.

If Mr Stanhope wants to support the gay community, he should turn his attention to practical issues, such as winning federal agreement to overturn laws that still discriminate against gay relationships, including the Medicare safety net, public sector superannuation, veterans' entitlements and judicial pensions. Same-sex couples should not let their private lives be manipulated for political advantage

--> Possibly the most laughable paragraph I've ever seen uttered in an editoral. First of all the Australian discusses how Howard will benefit politically from this and then it accuses Stanhope of using the issue for his advantage. Well either it's one or the other? What political 'advantage' has Mr Stanhope gained from this? If he was acting against the interests of 'middle Australia' as they claim then surely there would have been a disadvantage in him pursuing it? But the Australia seems to be dazzled by Howard's use of this issue as a wedge issue.

Do you know not once are the views of gay people taken into account in this piece. Not once. They are irrelevant of course, their views don't count in all of this. What matters is that 'Middle Australians' (i.e the bigots in the Liberal Party) are happy. That's all that ever matters and if you don't like it you can fuck off.

The government AND The Australian should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

No comments: