A person I know got onto me on a particular topic. They said they knew I was or had been tangled up with a conservative political party at some point & wanted to tackle me on a topic. I said sure, I was fine with that, out of the blue is fine with me...fair bump, play on.
The topic was clear, so was my view & I think it may have been they that were surprised. Perhaps pleasantly surprised.
The Topic? The anti-LBGTI & pro Gay Conversion Thereapy stance of the Australian Christian Lobby, local political parties/branches and churches. I just assumed that this was going to be a short chat, easily outlined and sorted. I think they were thinking it was going to be an uncomfortable spot for me as they suspected I'm also a church going Christian.
It wasn't, still isn't.
I pointed out if there's any genuine examples of a person being discriminated against I would stand next to them & argue with them, stick up for them. I pointed out that at this point I haven't seen anyone support or defend Gay Conversion Therapy (GCT). Not churches, political parties not anyone. I said that it should be set out what people mean by GCT first. What I think some will be opposed to, me included is that some legislation in the making has serious penalties for parents who talk, parent & direct children on their gender, sexual matters. I hadn't heard the details but likely I'd oppose regulating what parents can & can't say to their kids when parenting.
On the matter of the Albany Baptist Church holding an event with 2 people public speaking on their life journey from a gay lifestyle to a hetrosexual lifestyle and becoming Christian I had no view before or since that was against that. It was their life, their choice, their free will. It cannot be criticised just as it cannot be criticised if a young person came out as gay or any other part of the LBGTI+ identifier.
The claim there was hate, hate speech & promotion/support for GCT so far had proven to be quite incorrect so I was fine with the event but saddened by some people stretching towards activism & wanting the event cancelled when no discrimination or hate had been proven.
I was asked what about Gay Conversion Therapy & I pointed out it wasn't any part of the persons speaking nor the church involved. I don't think something unconnected to them should be weaponised against them. If there's any real genuine discrimination I'm happy to stand next to the affected party or parties. I pointed out I would stand next to them and join them in making noise against the discrimination.
I asked is that not fair & reasonable and was told yes but they believed the political party & churches were pro Gay Conversion Therapy. I pointed out, there is so far nothing to suggest that is correct, I'm not getting stuck into anyone over something that is unproven or just a few people's opinion.
Thats over reach. Its over reach not based on truth so its doubly wrong.
They seemed to accept that.
Next I was asked about the Australian Christian Lobby and the ban on their use of the Albany Entertainment Centre. I said I was happy they were now "uncancelled" and able to use the publicly owned venue. I pointed out it is publicly owned, not government owned and there were really no grounds under WA & Australia's discrimination provisions to deny the ACL to hire the venue.
It was pointed out to me, the Australian Christian Lobby was a religious & political lobby group and they should be banned from speaking. That they had a history of hate speech. I pointed out that if someone can point out actual provable hate speech, hate agenda I would stand with the accusers & make noise in opposing any group that is in breach of what are discrimination provisions in WA & Australia.
But so far there's lots of claims, no proof. Most borders on false smear & I and the party I've been connected with would not support that sort of un-democratic attack.
I was told that there should be a seperation of Church & State and that the ACL breach that. I said if that was true I'd join in opposing it but its not true. I pointed out there are legal provisions to seperate Church & State otherwise we'd have a theocracy. I pointed out we do not, we cannot, that I don't even know if it ever can be done but if it could a referendum of 75% in favour would be required. I pointed out Christianity has non theocracy premises in its Scriptures & probably the only way a theocracy could ever happen in the this country would be an brutal deadly genocide laden armed uprising.
We have seperation of Church & State now, that is definitely not under threat & there is no proof of any Christian group having that as an agenda or goal. None.
It also happens to be the case that no one operates without a worldview, no person in Parliament is without a world view. Some are of religious faith, some of non religious faith or belief, some of anti religious faith but there is no possibility of any of those worldviews can take over a government.
We have freedom to worship (or not) whoever we individually choose.
They accepted those points as well. They were getting an explained view, not siege mode attacks.
I was then told ACL has commited hate speech and had a hate agenda. I said if that had happened I and the party I'd been connected with with stand next to accusers and condemn the comments that would breach discrimination & hate speech provisions in this state & country. So far that hasn't happened.
I pointed out that most people whether they're in a church, in a political party or not in either really don't care who your personal relationship is with. Its your choice & as long as its not breaking the law & is concensual no one cares. Its probably a bit like religion, no one wants religion or the sexual preferences of others rammed down their throat. I said its unfortunate that people who happen to be LBGTI+ use their sexual preference as their identifier. Most people I know who are gay are older people, in my age group or older and they're Australian citizens in relationships. Their bed partner's gender or how they identify isn't their sole identity. Its a bit like farming. I'm a farmer, but it's not who I am, its just a part of who I am. I'm also a Dockers supporter and a number of other things...I'm just a bloke.
I repeated the call, if there's someone copping discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age or other lines in the sand there are anti discrimination provisions in WA & Australia and I'm happy to stand with genuinely targeted people. However first port of call is not social media or Officeworks to pick up supplies to make protest signs. First port of call is the discrimination provisions in law.
I genuinely don't care what people choose or don't choose if its within the law &as I understand it the political parties are the same. There are non hetrosexual people, young people, people of various races and mixed races in conservative parties. Those so called "markers" or identifiers are usually ignored but certainly not targeted or discriminated. I'd stand alongside anyone discriminated & make noise.
I won't stand against a person of differing sexuality, age, race, religion because someone says they are a group of depolarable agenda holders when there's no proof. Nor should we rally & protect because some people's views or claims cause others to be offended but no law is breached.
I pointed out, most people don't care to know whether someone is straight or whichever. They genuinely don't care & have zero interested knowing unless there's some discrimination. Until then most of us have reached the point of staggering indifference to a person's personal persuasion or views.
Free choice, free will, free speech must all be protected.
Then the turning point.
I said, join a political party & have a say but be sure that the claims some are making to you are substantial and able to be substantiated. Mind you if they can, you won't have to join a political party to get them to stand alongside the discriminated. I got agreement.
I also pointed out many believe that when people are young they tend to be heart led & lean left. As they get older they tend to lean towards conservative or less left & use their head not emotions (a contested idea amongst some though). I added that some of the ones who have gone away from LBGTI+ Pride & towards activism are younger ones & have made claims that don't stack up & that does no one any good. They won't get me standing alongside them making noise if the claim is false, untrue or emotion battle based.
Discrimination does not work along political party lines. But it has to be substantial & able to be substantiated, otherwise no one cares about a person's life style, political views, partner choice, sexual orientation, gender identity. No one really cares about other peoples unaffected place in the world.
It was then they said yes some of the younger ones are spoiling for a fight.
I repeated, if there's discrimination thats substantial & able to be substantiated I and probably every member of the political parties would stand alongside them...but they'd also say its wise stay off social media & picket lines, use the legal channels that oppose discrimination.
I will however definitely won't stand next to people trying to silence anyone or cancel views they simply don't like or disagree with & there's no actual proof of hate laden discrimination
"Yeah fair point"
There are non hetrosexual people in Conservative Parties, but frankly I don't care about their sexuality & they genuinely don't care about mine. Its a private matter & no one is hard done by. There's even people who are Collingwood supporters in consevrative parties and no one cares. Now if anyone was going to mock, discriminate or exclude someone it'd be against them but even there no one cares if you like the Magpies.
Test claims, side with truth & facts. Stay within the law & support those who are wrongly targeted via the legal process.
Simple conservative approach.
Simples.
No comments:
Post a Comment