Pauline, Plebiscite, Uluru

I guess you can order burqas online line now, which makes the image of Pauline Hanson shopping for one a lot less funny

Pauline Hanson donned a burqa in her office and walked to the upper house. Hilariously, en rout she met Green's senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who shook her hand and praised her action, completely unaware of who was underneath the veil. It's a bit early to resort to analogies to explain just how funny that is, but it's fair to say that as most of Parliament stood and cheered following George Brandis' bollocking of Hanson that he probably felt like a bit of a tit. Hopefully moreso when he learns that the handshake he requested and received from the mystery burqa lady is a bit of a faux-pas on his behalf. To the surprise of hopefully no-one the woman who feels the need (or the external pressure) to hide every single inch of skin from the contact of eyes of any man who is not her husband/father/brother/son is also not down with physical touch from the same. 

Pauline knew this, which creates a fantastic situation where the head of One Nation was better educated on Islamic cultural sensitivities than someone from the Greens. I'm not one to judge (much) but I'm tipping most of the Greens consider themselves better educated than Pauline on everything but the consistency of flake batter, so that'll come as a bit of a sting to Peter. 

I don't like Pauline. I think she's a fear monger, who picks and chooses which facts to believe and has little thought for the consequences of her words and actions. The burqa's a good example: she sees it as a symbol of Islam as a whole. In truth, the practice is followed by a minority, and generally it's attached to the Wahhabi side of things. If you want to talk about how a woman chooses to wear a burqa, it's probably best to avoid the Wahhabis, unless you also want to argue that women in Saudi Arabia also choose not to drive, not to travel without escort (and often a signed permission slip from their father or husband) and willingly get stoned to death when accused of adultery. You're gonna have a bad time. Wahhabism is a textbook example of why religion shouldn't mix with politics. Burqas are a bit of a symbol of this, and as such are problematic. I'm not an advocate for banning them, but when my least favourite (and most amusing) politician says they're problematic and represent an element of a religion that cannot assimilate into Australian culture, she has a point. Freedom to practice your religion is important - but it has to be a choice. 

I know christians on both sides of the argument regarding the upcoming plebiscite. I also know people on both sides of the "born this way" debate, or not-debate, depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Or, I guess you could be sitting on the fence, in several metaphors, and be even more certain of your belief.* 

Anyway. I think people in the "No" camp have a poor understanding of politics and religion, and that many people in the "Yes" camp are struggling to come to grips with what freedom of religion and respect of other people's culture is supposed to mean. You've read this far, so I'll elaborate. 

There are two arguments in particular that keep popping up in the No camp. The first is that marriage equality (not usually referred to as such) is the first horseman, as it were, which represents a downfall of morality in society. If gay marriage is OK, then soon it'll be men marrying goats, or kids, and gays adopting kids. 

There's two parts to respectfully debating this. The first is consent, which goats and kids legally can't give, and that's unlikely to change. The second is that if you're worried about homosexuals having kids, you've really missed the boat. Gay couples can adopt. Single people can adopt too. Having gay parents equates to being gay yourself exactly has much as having straight parents makes you straight, going to church makes you christian, or having a degree makes you intelligent. 

The second is that marriage is an institution of the church, and should line up with the biblical definition of marriage. "Homosexuality is unquestionably a sin" will usually show up here, too. 

Again, two things: Firstly, marriage is a government institution, which is allowed to be practiced by churches and celebrants only with the expressed consent of the government. The lovely Certificate of Marriage that your besties signed as witnesses won't allow you to change your name at VicRoads. It's a wallhanger. You don't go to your pastor for a divorce. Unless, that is, you live in a time or place where the church is in control of the government, which has often ended in crusades, beheadings, ethnic cleansing and general ignoring of human rights. (See: Rome, England, current day Saudi Arabia)

The second part regards arguing about the scriptures. Very few people are properly qualified to do this with certainty. Of course, people should still debate scriptures, just like they should political theory, or tax law. It is a democracy, after all. If you, or someone you know, wants to use bible verses to justify their outlook, that's fine. But remind them to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. What people sometimes forget about the separation of church and state, is that it is as much about the Church not dictating the government as it is about the government dictating the Church. If you enjoy freedom of religion, and your personal freedom in engaging in Christianity in the particular way that you do, then you should probably think about whether or not you should be voting to limit the choices of others. God gave us free will: I'd like to think he expected us to give it to others as well. 

For some reason The Age published a story about how "Idiots still climb Uluru". I didn't read it, because... really? That's what needs to be written about right now? It did however get me thinking. 

Most Australians respect the wishes of the Indigenous peoples and do not partake in something that causes no physical harm whatsoever to anybody, except that it offends a culture based on spirits, gods, and things that can be in no way measured by science. Keep this in mind when talking to someone who's world view is conditioned by a religion that you do not yourself practice. When right-wing christians claim they will be targeted unfairly and not respected within the debate, they do so because of historical occurrences of being not respected.

I'm not suggesting the ridicule or targeting of the church is on par or any way comparable to violence against homosexuals, or the verbal (or literal) bashings received by people who look remotely moslem on the train. Pain is not comparable, it is measured in only in a very personal sense. So please, tread lightly. We live in a democracy, and part of that is the right to an opinion that goes against broad consensus. 

After all, you don't have to be qualified for your opinion to count, you just have to be old enough to vote. 

*That's a bisexual joke, but you have to think about it

How I learned to stop worrying and love the plebiscite (debate)

They did it guys! High fives all round. Bill Shorten's approval rating has surged, particularly among non-voting teenagers, who went out of their way to 'like' him on Facebook. Labor stood up for what is right (the left?) and protected the mental stability of a vulnerable group of people who the majority of Australians have treated with disdain. But it isn't just Labor politicians who feared backlash, and I agree with the valid concerns of the opponents of the plebiscite that the debate was going to be damaging to (particularly) young homosexuals, who are consistently over-represented in suicide statistics. So, this is good.
I'm happy to show my cards here - I support gay marriage. Or as it will be referred to by the majority in a small amount of time, marriage. I like marriage, but that isn't why I support marriage equality. It's not because I think there is room for it (or homosexuality at all) in the Bible, because I don't have a degree in theology, and I've seen plenty of historical examples where scriptures have been used to justify any political desire you can think of. Instead, it's because of a double conviction.
Firstly, the Government should do Government things. A certificate of marriage is a government document. Marriage is a government institution, and the government grants Pastors the permission to play registry official if he (or she, because we let women be clergy these days, in spite of some of Paul's teachings) passes the appropriate government mandated tests. If you still can't grasp the idea of marriage not being a church institution, try filling your divorce papers with a priest sometime. I'm not talking about the past. I'm not talking about the historical origins of marriage, and I'm not qualified to. I'm talking about now, because 'now' should be the most relevant discussion point.
The second reason is even easier to explain. I believe in the separation of Church and State. I don't want the church to mandate what the government should do, and I don't want the government to control how the church operates. The powers that be have been pretty good about keeping up their end of the bargain (charity status, freedom of religion, power to perform marriages etc) and I think we should respect their position and do the same. The proposed legislation includes legal protection for pastors who don't wish to wed same-sex couples. I think it's almost impossible to be against marriage equality without acknowledging that you are controlling how someone else decides to live, which is something that God elected not to do when he gave us free choice. So take it up with him.
There will be a time for the debate within individual churches regarding whether or not those ceremonies will be performed in that individual church. I don't have an answer for that either way, and I think it's going to incredibly divisive.
Anyway.
What prompted me to write this was an advert for Sportsbet, which had a bonus offer on betting on the US election. "Take a bet on democracy" was the tagline, and I thought it was hilarious for a couple of reasons. For one, I thought it could have been extended. "Take a bet on democracy; unlike Labor." I was a little disappointed that the pro-plebiscite camp didn't really take their argument to the natural conclusion. Which is support the plebiscite, because if you don't, you're a democracy hating fascist who should move to China. I'm even more put out that the anti-plebs (definitely a thing) didn't pursue the natural conclusion. Instead of stopping at "Australia can't be trusted to have a debate on sensitive topics", why not go to "representative democracy is a stupid idea which allows candidates like Pauline Hanson, Donald Trump, and Derryn Hinch to attain power on the basis of one-liners". See, I would have been completely on board with that! Never mind T. Abbott running an entire (and entirely successful) campaign by shouting STOP THE BOATS every time a reporter touched his elbow, or that K.Rudd won an election by his willingness to have smarmy conversations with Rove McManus.
Every argument made against the plebiscite can be made against our current democratic structure. We all "take a bet on democracy" every four years, and when 49% of Australians think that muslim immigration should be stopped, (tragically, results for the follow-up poll of "how many Bali-dollars does a Bintang cost on Kuta Beach" seem to have been lost) you have to start to wonder if that's the best idea.
I guess the whole "anti-democratic" thing being an insult only works in America. I think we could've had McCarthyism here, but where the US had Walter Cronkite, we had Molly Meldrum. (I'm aware my timelines are out. I don't care. I studied International Relations, not Historical Television Journalism)
Maybe that's why so many people are in favour of the plebiscite being trashed. It's not because everyone believes in representative democracy (please explain) but because we're less concerned by political decisions that don't really concern us (like whether or not someone attended a Communist meeting once, or if the guy from Savage Garden can marry his partner) and more concerned with The Bachelor. Now, that's fine. I can acknowledge that many people don't want to talk about Syria, and most people are accepting that I don't have an opinion on Richie, or that bacon chick. But every four years, politicians gather support because of a stance on Syria, national debt, immigration, refugee intake, or 1,000 other subjects that require a lot of studying to understand properly. When Donald Drumpf says "I'm gonna build a wall", or K.Rudd "I'll put the blowtorch on OPEC", people will nod, and vote for them on the day. The voices highlighting that there isn't enough concrete (let alone finance) in the US for the wall, or asking who the hell Kevin Rudd is (in Arabic, of course) go unheard.
The truth, or at least reality, doesn't matter.
So, you hate the plebiscite. That's great. And you thought a referendum was an unnecessary expense, and that regular people can't be trusted with intelligent, non-offensive debate. I'm on board. Unfortunately, your distaste for democratic action has led us back to representative democracy - we elect people who make decisions for us. I implore you, friend: take it to the next level.
Don't just hate the plebiscite because you don't trust people you disagree with: hate representative democracy because you don't trust anyone. Not the people voting, not the Murdoch press journalists, and definitely not the multi-millionaire politicians who need to swoon the former in order to keep their jobs at the expense of our human rights record, the environment, and whichever section of society (hello, Centrelink recipients! It's time for your bi-annual public shaming!) they've chosen to bash next.

Come to the dark side, friends. It's time we had a talk.



Latest bumper sticker: Don't blame me, I lodged a protest vote for a party that is unlikely to have power in the Senate