Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex & Queer people in Melbourne's Jewish community. Founded 1995.
‘Independent, Jewish, gay.’ @frankelly08’s final observations after the #Wentworth by election.
'Independent, Jewish, gay.' @frankelly08's final observations after the #Wentworth by election. pic.twitter.com/ao4K4KipPg
— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) October 20, 2018
2018 Wentworth by-election candidate responses to ECAJ “religious freedom” question.
[ The information below is drawn from the four linked J-Wire pages. We have ordered the candidates alphabetically by surname. ]
In the interests of ensuring that our community is properly informed and engaged in the political process The Executive Council of Australian Jewry asked the four candidates currently polling at over 10% of the primary vote (as per the Reachtel poll published on 17 September), to state their positions on matters of special concern to Jewish Australians.
Religious Freedom
The same-sex marriage survey last year has led to claims that religious freedom is not adequately protected in Australia, and that religious institutions and organisations should have enhanced rights to discriminate in favour of members of their own faith, or to promote their own beliefs.
- Do you agree?
The same-sex marriage debate was about removing the state-supported discrimination that was enshrined in law (within the marriage act). This had no impact on the rights of religious institutions to continue their faith-based practices in the existing manner including practice or promotion of their beliefs.
The Australian community, including the Wentworth community, strongly voiced its support of removing discrimination in Australian law and in civil practice.
To legislate in a manner that establishes, in law, a right to discriminate against a segment of the Australian community is against the majority of strongly held community sentiment and should not be supported.
Allowing a religious, or religiously-affiliated institution to discriminate against one minority group would open the door to other forms of discrimination that are against community values – such as religious discrimination.
If religious schools or institutions practice discrimination outside of the law, and outside of community standards, then they forfeit the right
I am comfortable with the marriage equality legislation passed last year and the protections it provides.
I believe that all Australians should be free to practice their religion, provided that does not impinge on the rights or freedoms of others.
More than any other group, the Jewish community understands the consequences of discrimination on the basis of religion.
I do not believe in any form of discrimination.
At a time when their only worry should be whether they get their homework done in time, some children have to worry that they may be expelled from school because they are gay or transgender.
We know the consequences of marginalisation and rejection are serious and potentially fatal, with high rates of suicide and attempted suicide in children and young people who are rejected or lack social support if they think they are gay or transgender.Schools should provide supportive environments for these children and young people.
I believe that religion and faith communities should provide comfort and protection for vulnerable young people, not be the source of distress and despair.
As a doctor I am deeply concerned that after the bruising marriage equality campaign, yet another debate about the personal lives of LGBTQI people will open those wounds again.
Wentworth is quite a progressive community. 80% voted for same-sex marriage, as I did.
I would be opposed to any new measures that impose forms of discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, or anything else.
It is important to many, right across Australia, that people be free to choose their religion and express and practice their beliefs, without intimidation – so long as they practice their beliefs within the framework of the law.
The Government is considering the report of the expert panel chaired by Philip Ruddock, which received 15,000 submissions on this issue. I’m confident the Government will get the balance right.
Guest article by Gregory Storer.
Michael Danby MP has let us all know, well before the next election, that he won’t be standing again.
The member for Melbourne Ports has been in the seat since 1998. That’s twenty years.
While Danby may have enjoyed the support of his Jewish constituency, that can’t be said about other demographics within his electorate.
Letters of congratulations and thanks have been pouring in for him.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry issued a glowing summary of Danby’s retirement, saying that it is sad news. They talk about him being a ‘fearless champion for the arts and for many human rights causes, most especially those which have not been fashionable or popular, or which have attracted the ire of powerful interests.’
They then give two examples, Danby meeting with the Dalai Lama and his ‘passionate advocacy for Israel’.
Danby’s record isn’t so wonderful when it comes to human rights. Despite his electorate being in the heart of a diverse area with not only a large Jewish population, but also a GLBTIQ cohort, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a supportive role for his ‘gay community’.
When the horrid knife attack at the Jewish Pride March of 2015 happened, the best he could do was like a tweet from Aleph Melbourne.
It was a pretty simple ask. However, Danby has always kept his support for all things Jewish separate from his support for the GLBTIQ community.
When it came to the election in 2010 where I stood against him in Melbourne Ports, it soon became apparent that he didn’t want to muddy the waters. He never addressed Jewish concerns or GLBITQ issues in the one media release. He ensured that his advertising was separate and had different messages for different audiences. Which in itself may not be a big issue, except that he failed to represent the views of organisations such as Aleph, barely even acknowledging their existence. His main bragging point to the Jewish voters was how much he and the then-Labor Government had spent in the community; he called it “The golden era of Labor and Jewish Schools”. Never once did he mention anything about gay rights or all the work he purported to do for the GLBTIQ community.
It’s also worth recalling his response to the horrific shooting of two young people in a gay community centre in Tel Aviv in 2009. He didn’t have one.
When he was busy crowing about how he managed to change moderation policies on crickey.com.au and newmatilda.com.au, which he described as the “Dark and Ugly Recesses of the Internet” he simply ignored a local orthodox Jewish blog that was blatantly homophobic. He took issue with Crikey and New Matilda for posting comments regarding the holocaust and talks about the anti-Semitism on their sites. He used his position to persuade them to make the changes. However, he couldn’t bring himself to address that hate blog from his own community that was almost daily pumping out the hate towards the GLBTIQ community.
The whole lack of support can be summed up with his approach to marriage equality. So while he had been busily chasing the ‘gay vote’ for years in his electorate, he didn’t support equality at all in the parliament, despite claiming he was supportive. I asked him during a candidates debate and he said that the Labor party would address the matter in the next parliament. He never did. When it did come to a vote, he abstained, he left the floor of the house. He never attended one marriage equality rally to show support. He barely acknowledged the Pride March that went past his office every year.
So, while everyone is saying how much he’ll be missed and what a great supporter of the community he has been, just remember, the man played politics with the lives of those he was supposed to be representing.
He sought the vote of the gay and the Jewish community, but made sure that he never mention it to either community.
He went out of his way to call out human rights transgressions, but never once publicly supported Aleph in their attempts to raise sexuality and gender identity issues in his electorate.
He really hasn’t been a hero of Melbourne Ports.
Even in departing, he can’t even muster a few gay people to stand with him in front of his Yes window like he did on other occasions.
This Monday (Sep 4 2017) the Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) issued a statement (incorrectly dated Sep 9 2017) advising the Jewish community to vote “No” in the proposed postal survey on whether the Marriage Act should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Changes to the Marriage Act enabling same-sex marriages will not impact authorised ministers of religion, as the existing protections under the Marriage Act will remain in force, allowing them to refuse to solemnise those marriages they object to.
The letter issued by the RCV draws on misleading, inaccurate and irrelevant information, failing to cite any sources.
Civil marriage in Australia is not subject to the requirements of Jewish law (Halacha). Orthodox rabbis have no right to interfere in the lives of people who do not wish to engage in an Orthodox Jewish marriage.
It would be appropriate for the RCV to desist from issuing negative statements on civil marriage while there is no proposed impact to their ability to perform their religious duties.
| 6 | Council of Progressive Rabbis and the Union for Progressive Judaism (PDF 2422 KB) [backup copy] 6.1 Supplementary to submission 6 (PDF 3073 KB) [backup copy] |
| 128 | Rabbinic Council of Australia and New Zealand (PDF 68 KB) [backup copy] |
| 131 | Rabbinical Council of NSW (PDF 131 KB) [backup copy] |
| 133 | Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) & Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) (PDF 33 KB) [backup copy] |
A selection of responses to Bill Leak’s “Waffen-SSM“ cartoon that were published in the Australian Jewish News. Click on each to enlarge.
Protecting minorities
IT’S a bit rich for Paul Winter (AJN 21/10) to talk about society only protecting noisy, aggressive minorities subverting democracy.
Part of our democratic society is to protest about things we see as wrong. Signalling disapproval to a supplier, such as a hotel, is a legitimate way to make it known that you disapprove of their business practices. Threatening people is never acceptable and every protest has those on the fringe. It’s unfair to suggest that all protesters hold the same opinions or use the same actions. Similarly, overlooking that a vast majority of Australians support marriage equality and that it’s a small minority of religious people who object is to ignore reality.
As a society we must look after our minorities and listen to their needs so that people aren’t simply ignored or regarded as insignificant. The gay population is about two per cent, while the Jewish population is around 0.5 per cent.
Minorities always struggle to have their plight seen as important by the larger population and struggle to gain recognition and relevance in a world that mostly considers minorities unimportant.
In his letter, Geoff Bloch (AJN 14/10) downplays the obvious Nazi connections with the Leak cartoon. He said that the cartoon did not depict marriage equality advocates as Nazis, seeming to avoid the only words written on the cartoon “Waffen-SSM”.
Speaking as a man who is gay, I found Leak’s cartoon to be in extremely bad taste and Bloch’s letter equally objectionable.
GREGORY STORER
Carnegie, Vic
On June 27 2016 the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) published an article by Ahron Shapiro critical of the Australian Greens entitled “The Greens and Israel“.
The article opened with the following caution:
Pre-election polling and analysis suggests the Australian Greens party is likely to pick up one or more lower house seats this election – on top of retaining the seat of Melbourne. This gives it the potential to not only hold the balance of power in the Senate, but if a hung parliament results from this election, also determine who forms government – with very significant leverage over the minority government thus formed.
and concluded with the following section on domestic policy:
Religious Exemptions
A further issue in the Greens platform likely to concern many in Australia is its policy of removing clauses granting limited exemptions to religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws. This would likely impact significantly on Jewish schools and other communal institutions and concern has been expressed about this policy by Jewish community leaders.
Aleph Melbourne approached AIJAC for clarification of the “significant impact” and the “expressed concern” referred to in the article.
Colin Rubinstein, AIJAC Executive Director, provided the following explanation:
In response to your query I refer you to the story below in the Australian from May 24.
While it may be that there was not much Jewish reaction in the press on the Greens plan, the reaction that was published was top-level.
Peter Wertheim does not comment on every story he is approached for, and his decision to comment here, I would say, well reflected his confidence and our feedback too that he was conveying the community’s sentiment expressed anecdotally behind the scenes.
At any rate, our mention of this plan took up a very small part of our overall report on the Greens, and should be put in proper perspective.
Colin also provided the two source paragraphs from the May 24 2016 article “Federal election 2016: Greens under pressure on religion reforms” in The Australian by David Crowe:
Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are objecting to the Greens plan to remove the religious exemptions, saying it could force people to act against their faith.
and:
Executive Council of Australian Jewry director Peter Wertheim said: “It would be wrong and unworkable for the law to compel people to do things that are contrary to their religious beliefs or conscience.’’
Independently, Aleph Melbourne had contacted Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, on May 24 2016 about the aforementioned article, querying if he had been quoted accurately. Peter provided the following response:
Here is the whole quote I gave to The Australian.
It is appropriate for the law to ensure that people are not discriminated against at work or in accessing education, housing and other services, because of their race, gender, sexual preference, age or disability. However, it would be wrong and unworkable for the law to compel people to do things that are contrary to their religious beliefs or conscience.
My comment would therefore not apply to a proposed change to the definition of marriage in section 5[1] of the Marriage Act. But it would apply to a proposed repeal of section 47[2] of the Marriage Act. My understanding is that the proponents of marriage equality are only seeking the former, not the latter. I didn’t refer specifically to the Greens, but given the vagueness and generality of Senator McKimm’s statements I couldn’t work out what he was proposing, and therefore thought it was right to comment.
It is evident that AIJAC was not aware of Peter Wertheim’s full quote supplied to The Australian, and by inference was similarly unaware that Peter was referring to issues relating to the Marriage Act and not anti-discrimination legislation.
AIJAC was lobbying their interest groups to vote unfavourably for the Greens in the July 2 2016 Federal election. Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation directly impact LGBTIQ Australians, some of whom are Jewish, who are employed by Jewish organisations. It is deeply disappointing that AIJAC targeted the Greens anti-discrimination policy based on an unsubstantiated claim, more so when it has the potential to hurt some of the most vulnerable members of society.
It is also deeply disappointing that AIJAC attempted to minimise the significance of mentioning the paragraph about the Greens policy on removal of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation. The damage to people’s lives due to this exemption is amply significant.
An apology from AIJAC to the Greens and to LGBTIQ people for their unfair criticism of the Greens policy would be appreciated.
[1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html
[2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s47.html
ALEPH MELBOURNE MEDIA RELEASE
2016 VOTERS GUIDE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN JEWISH MELBOURNE
June 21 2016
Aleph Melbourne proudly announces its 2016 Voters Guide for Marriage Equality in Jewish Melbourne.
Following on from the successful 2013 edition, this voters guide is an essential resource for the savvy voter who is keen on prioritising equality for same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse people.
The guide covers the electorates of Goldstein, Higgins, Hotham, Kooyong, Melbourne Ports and Menzies. These electorates are selected as they span the suburbs where Melbourne’s Jewish community are predominantly located.
Individual candidates’ positions are provided where known along with links to party and social media profiles.
A list of supportive senate candidates will be added in coming days.
A range of resources are provided in the guide to allow further research into the key issues around achieving equality and organisations that are working to help achieve it.
View the guide here: http://aleph.org.au/2016/06/11/2016-voters-guide-to-marriage-equality-in-jewish-melbourne
CONTACT: Michael Barnett | michael@aleph.org.au | 0417-595-541
This guide is aimed to assist voters living in the main Jewish neighbourhoods in Melbourne best select candidates who have comprehensively demonstrated or pledged their full support for marriage equality.
Levels of support for “same-sex marriage” listed for each electorate in this guide are taken from the “News Ltd 2010 Same-Sex Marriage Poll”. The raw data is available in the resources section below.
MPs re-contesting their seats have an * after their name.
Feedback, corrections and updates are invited via the form below. Information is provided here in good faith and on the understanding that it is correct.
This page is optimised for viewing on a full-screen browser.
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:
✡ Candidate has declared a Jewish identity
Candidate has declared a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex identity
From: Michael Barnett
Date: 16 February 2016 at 22:06
Subject: ECAJ & Marriage Equality
To: Peter Wertheim <PWertheim@ecaj.org.au>, Robert Goot <president@ecaj.org.au>
Hi Peter, Robert,
I see the ECAJ are keen to discuss “LGBT equality” for it’s ideological purposes:
https://www.ecaj.org.au/2016/open-letter-to-the-anti-israel-left
Ordinarily this use of LGBTI people would not bother me but given Australia doesn’t have LGBTI equality and given your organisation exists to promote the welfare (eg equality) of Australians, it seems you’re taking a liberty with the liberties LGBTI Australians don’t yet have.
Allow me to remind you of your platform:
| This Council: | |
| 1.1 | NOTES that it is the vision of the ECAJ to create and support a community in which all Australians, including all Jewish Australians: (a) feel valued and their cultural differences are respected; (b) have a fair opportunity to meet their material and other needs; and (c) are equally empowered as citizens to participate in and contribute to all facets of life in the wider community; |
Right now I’m not feeling especially valued, not do I have fair opportunity to meet my needs, and am not empowered to participate in or contribute to all facets of life in the wider community. I am sure I speak for others too.
On this particular ground, I’d really like your organisation to sign its name to marriage equality so LGBTI people in Australia can have equal rights, similarly to those of the people you are so proud to show off in your open letter.
To this end, Australian Marriage Equality have provided a simple mechanism to facilitate your addition to their list of over 800 supporters:
http://www.
It would also be an ideal opportunity for the ECAJ to follow in the footsteps of Bialik College, a proud supporter of marriage equality.
How soon can you arrange this support?
Regards,
Michael.
0417-595-541.
