National Broadband Network

The language within the two articles “Turnbull’s fragmented NBN dooms Australia to repeat the mistakes of the past” published by ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on September 4th and “NBN’s glimmer of hope” by Mark Gregory, published by ‘Business Spectator’ show the audience the power that politicians and the government have over simple issues by valuing the cultural representations of Australia such as equality and using local workers to manufacture and install products instead of larger national or international giants.

Australian society highly values local work over international and national efforts, Gregory’s article reveals to the audience through and uses dramatic, negative language such as ‘terminate’ and ‘failure’ (Business Spectator, 2013) to position readers to view the national contractors in a negative light. Comparatively to this is when Gregory talks about the local contractors using words such as ‘experienced’ and phrases such as “one wearing a camel back to remain hydrated in the extreme heat” show the audience the ingenuity and detail that these local contractors bring to the job, and revealing to us that local contractors can be just as good if not better than larger company giants.

On the contrary to valuing local workers is the Sydney Morning Herald’s article which is written to position the audience to see equality within our society via the use of highly dramatised quotes such as “hotch potch broadband infrastructure and monopolistic quagmire created by decades of market failure and regulatory impotence – an environment which empowered the monster that is Telstra” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2013) to position the audience to see that the government, primarily that the coalition are to blame for the shaky infrastructure of our copper networks. With this is a quote about Malcolm Turnbull saying “he’s open to the idea of letting competing telcos build different parts of the NBN – allowing them to cherry-pick the profitable suburbs while making it harder for NBN Co to sustain the network in less profitable areas” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2013) showing to the audience the inequality that the coalition government brings to Australian citizens by using dramatic words such as ‘cherry-pick’  to reinforce the ideas and issues that appear with Turnbull’s policy, also showing the values of competition within the businesses competing to try and get the better parts of the NBN and therefore get a better profit. The article also uses the author’s opinion saying “Turnbull’s plan is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2013) by using this quote and the negative language and tone that it contains, the audience is positioned to see that the coalition’s National Broadband Network scheme is a horrible idea for todays society to have to suffer with.

The values of Australia’s cultural representations that present within these two articles are that of contradictory statements yet combine together in another way to show us that we should have equal amounts of local contractors and national contractors within our society and not over amounts of either. Though is also shows us that we always seem to have someone to blame for our problems no matter who they are and what prevalence they have to the situation.

References:

Gregory, M 2013 NBN’s glimmer of hope, Business Spectator, accessed 4 September 2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/5/technology/nbns-glimmer-hope

Turnbull’s fragmented NBN dooms Australia to repeat the mistakes of the past, 2013 Sydney Morning Herald, accessed 4 September 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/turnbulls-fragmented-nbn-dooms-australia-to-repeat-the-mistakes-of-the-past-20130904-2t4cr.html

Representations of Carbon Tax Decisions

Close to Australia’s federal election, discussion of the issues surrounding carbon pricing and other emission abatement systems has featured strongly in parties’ campaigns and, as such, in the media. These issues are not always evenly represented by media producers; articles like Annabel Hepworth’s ‘Carbon delay “to cost billions,” warns business’ (The Australian, 10th September 2013) giving an incomplete viewpoint on the subject. More balanced articles, such as ‘Carbon tax change in new PM’s sights,’ by Dan Harrison, (The Age, 28th June 2013) are not as prominent.

News media often amplify the perceived effect that climate change abatement schemes have on Australia’s economic systems. Journalists for papers like ‘The Australian,’ and other News Limited publications, focus almost exclusively on the monetary implications of systems like the Labor government’s carbon tax and proposed emissions trading scheme, as well as downplaying the importance and effectiveness of allegedly expensive schemes.  The headline of ‘Carbon delay “to cost billions,” warns business’ immediately brings readers’ focus to the carbon tax’s financial influence. (The Australian, 10th September 2013) At the same time, the article’s position on the front page of the paper promotes the significance of that influence. Also, by using the word ‘warns’ in relation to the statement – rather than a more neutral term such as ‘says’ or ‘state’ – Hepworth implies that the project affects Australians entirely negatively; that the money is being spent on something that is not worthy of it. The article expresses the opinions of people such as the C.E.O of the Minerals Council of Australia, The Business Council of Australia’s deputy executive, and other executives of bodies involved with carbon-intensive industries, which have the most to lose through a carbon pricing system. The only other opinions quoted in the article are those of Politicians urging that the tax be removed. This bias balloons the conceived negative effects of a carbon pricing system, influencing readers to be fearful of such a system. This sort of prejudiced reporting in a widely read publication, if presented repeatedly, changes the public’s view on issues like carbon pricing, preventing them from making informed decisions. As such, similar reports undermine the principles of democracy by influencing the decisions of the public.

Reports, at other times, explore both environmental and economic issues surrounding the carbon tax, allowing their audience to consider it more comprehensively. Dan Harrison’s article, while centered on Mr Rudd’s intentions to alter the scheme, presents the opinions of politicians with differing outlooks on the idea, leading readers to scrutinize a range of estimations. Also, Harrison uses phrases like “[The] Prime Minister will dump the fixed carbon price” (The Age, 28th June 2013) to emphasize the suddenness of Rudd’s decision. This may prompt readers to question the reason for that decision and whether it is well conceived or not. Reports like ‘Carbon tax change in new PM’s sights’ afford their audience some enquiry into decisions surrounding emission-reduction programs. However, such articles on the topic are outnumbered in popular media by opinion articles and inadequate reportage, giving audiences a skewed view of these issues.

These articles represent the issues surrounding climate change abatement schemes with differing levels of comprehensiveness, giving their readers different ability to make informed decisions on these topics. Dan Harrison’s article presents a range of perspectives on the carbon tax and questions decisions made in relation to it, allowing its audience to properly consider the system and the decisions made. Annabel Hepworth’s article presents a one-sided representation of the system and decisions relating to it, depriving its readers of adequate ability to make decisions on the subject.

 

Harrison, D. (2013) ‘Carbon tax change in new PM’s sights,’ The Age, 28/6/2013 [Online] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-change-in-new-pms-sights-20130628-2p0vd.html

Hepworth, A. (2013) ‘Carbon delay “to cost billions,” warns business’ The Australian, 10/9/2013 [Online] Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/carbon-delay-to-cost-billions-warns-business/story-fn9qr68y-1226715692989

 

Syria

Most Australian produced reporting about the civil war in Syria during the lead up to the election was focused  on the politicians views and ideas about possible military action in Syria, not the actual conflict. However the texts that were focused on the issue represent the civil war in Syria as a having a worldwide impact.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s article ‘Syria: Where things stand now’ describes different global powers’ actions and decisions in relation to civil war in Syria as an “international puzzle”. This metaphorical description represents the war as having a significant impact on the decisions of countries and governments around the world. The article uses the phrase “the world waits” while introducing the article. The use of the word “world” suggests that the civil war in Syria is of worldwide importance. Suggesting that the civil war in Syria affects everyone makes the article seem more interesting as it personalises the issue and makes the reader feel more inclined to read the article and be engaged with the topic.

The same article represents foreign military intervention in a negative way. The article is divided into 13 sections each based on a separate people group or country. Each section shows the position of that people group or country’s on foreign military intervention. Seven of the  sections opinions are opposed military action, 3 sections support a military strike and the remaining 3 sections are undecided or neutral. This structure creates a negative representation of military action in Syria. This fosters negativity in the audience in relation to intervention of foreign military powers in Syria.

Another article from the Sydney morning herald, ‘Syria: What you need to know’,  creates a negative representation of the Syrian government. The text positions the audience to be against the Syrian government by criticising the government’s actions and using negative descriptions of the government.  the article repeatedly describes the Syrian government in a negative way through the use of adjectives with negative connotations such as “dictatorship”. The word “dictatorship” is usually used as a criticism and has negative connotations to do with corruption in the government. This creates a creates a negative representation of the Syrian government in the text. This representation is likely to make the reader be critical of the actions of the Syrian government.

The title of the article also represents the civil war in Syria as an important personal issue. First, the heading personalises the issue through the use of the word “you”. This makes the issue more personal. It then adds importance to the issue by claiming that you “need” to  know the information you are about to receive in the article. This represents the war in Syria as an important issue that should be important to the reader. This heading is also likely to make the reader interested in the article, therefore making it more likely for them to read it.

Although the article positions the reader against the Syrian Assad regime, it does not support intervention from the US military and positions the audience to see the US military as powerless to resolve the conflict in Syria. It describes the US military’s options as “all bad” and claims that there are “no viable options”. These descriptions create a negative representation of The US military. This places the reader in a position against foreign military intervention in Syria.

Both of these articles  use different language features to represent the civil war in Syria as an important global issue. Also, they both texts create a negative representation of foreign intervention military intervention in Syria. The title of the article ‘Syria: What you need to know’ positions the reader to be concerned with the conflict in Syria by personalising the issue and suggesting it is of great importance. This title may also have been used to engage the reader and make them more likely to read the article.

 

References

Fisher, MThe Sydney Morning Herald (2012) ‘Syria: What you need to know” [Online] Available from http://www.smh.com.au/world/syria-what-you-need-to-know-20130903-2t20m.html [Accessed 12 September 2013]

 

 

The Sydney Morning Herald (2012) ‘Syria: Where things stand now’ [Online] Available from http://www.smh.com.au/world/syria-where-things-stand-now-20130903-2t3g1.html [Accessed 12 September 2013]

Legalising Euthanasia in Australia

After being asked to find an issue of interest in relation to current federal election, I found many texts that showed different representations of the issue of Euthanasia.  The text’s Green’s push for Euthanasia bill, and Voluntary Euthanasia Party is Born both shown on the ABC NEWS website, positions the viewer to accept Greens MP Cate Faehrmann’s representation that Euthanasia is a simple, straight forward issue and should be legalised in New South Wales. In stark contrast, the article No place for euthanasia written by founder of HOPE: Preventing Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide Paul Russell, Euthanasia is represented as a complex issue, with many consequences, positioning the viewer to accept that it should not be legalised.

Language features throughout the texts allow the viewer to accept the values presented. Throughout the texts Green Push for Euthanasia Bill and Voluntary Euthanasia Party is Born, the use of statistics positions the audience to accept certain values. An example of this is shown in Green Push for Euthanasia Bill with the use of statistics is in relation to the Australia’s opinion on Euthanasia. “When surveyed, 85-per cent of the population agrees with euthanasia under those terms.” The use of this question positions the viewer to value its content, as the percentage is of high majority. The word ‘agree’ also reinforces the positioning that the article is trying to present, that Euthanasia should be legalised. In the same way, the text No place for euthanasia uses statistics to position the viewer to accept values, however these values represent why Euthanasia should not be legalised. Like Green Push for Euthanasia Bill, the text also chose a high percentage statistic, to make the argument valid. The quote tells of a recent survey being held in the UK, where “…70% of people living with disabilities feared the advent of euthanasia and assisted suicide”. The word ‘fear’, represents euthanasia as a thing to be scared or fearful of, and because the quote is positioned after Russell explains Euthanasia and its impact on the vulnerable and the elderly, it positions the viewer to feel sympathy and question ethics.  The phrase ‘assisted suicide’ also represents euthanasia as an illegal, and morally wrong thing to do, and positions the viewer to think about their moralistic judgments.

Positioning the viewer through emotions is another writing style used by the text Voluntary Euthanasia Party is Born. The article positions the viewer to feel sympathy, and to agree that Euthanasia should be legalised with the examples of three terminally ill candidates who launched an election campaign with Voluntary Euthanasia Party. The text uses the quotation of man Martin Burgess, who states that the campaign will be ‘physically tough’, but yet he will still continue to “get this issue as high a profile as possible”. The example of a person wanting to die with the use of Euthanasia makes the viewer believe that there is legitimate reasoning for it, therefore positioning them to agree to make Euthanasia legalised.

All texts researched show the importance of language features, in the use of positioning the audience to position values. In the texts studied, it becomes clear that the same use of language features show opposing representations for the issue of legalising Euthanasia in Australia.

By Gemma Evans

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Greens push for Euthanasia bill – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 2013. Greens push for Euthanasia bill – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-02/euthanasia/4665738. [Accessed 12 September 2013].

Opinion: No place for euthanasia – Australian Ageing Agenda: Aged Care and Retirement Industry News and Issues. 2013. Opinion: No place for euthanasia – Australian Ageing Agenda: Aged Care and Retirement Industry News and Issues. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2011/05/31/article/Opinion-No-place-for-euthanasia/HEDGJQUKQF.html. [Accessed 12 September 2013].

Voluntary Euthanasia Party is born – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). 2013. Voluntary Euthanasia Party is born – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-19/euthanasia-party-born/4897306. [Accessed 12 September 2013].

 

The Representation of Climate Change

 

In creating a representation of the issue of climate change in the recent federal election, reportage shows the effect that climate change will have and is having on Australia’s environment and as a country. Two articles from The Guardian newspaper, Australia’s Federal Election Just Couldn’t Face Up To Climate Change by Graham Readfearn and If Abbott is Elected, Australia’s Natural Wonders Will Gradually be Rubbed Away by George Monibot, discuss the lack of prominence given to climate change in the election, despite its support as an important issue by much of society. Text creators use emotive language and description to privilege the action needed to be taken towards this issue.

Descriptive and emotive language is used by text creators to show and support that climate change is a valid issue in current Australian society. An article written by Graham Readfearn uses explicit facts and events to allow little room to question the fact that climate change is important and does exist. He does this by using language such as, ‘the hottest summer ever recorded in Australia,’ and ‘…most widespread extreme heat wave.’ By mentioning these, he makes clear the effect that climate change is having, and positions the audience to question why politicians are not prioritizing the issue. George Monbiot also describes the destruction of cultural assets, and uses it to position audiences. He says under Tony Abbott, “Australia’s natural wonders will gradually be rubbed away.” This language suggests from the word ‘wonders’, that Australia strongly values its environment and that by not acting on climate change a part of its culture and identity will be destroyed.

Australia’s climate is an important aspect of its representation and culture. The article by George Monbiot describes the effect that dredging and dumping of material in inside the important Australian icon the Great Barrier Reef. “It will be a simple declaration that nothing – not even the Great Barrier Reef, on which so much of Australia’s image and revenue depends- will be allowed to stand in the way of extraction and destruction.”And, “If Abbott is elected, the natural wonders that distinguish this nation will gradually be rubbed away until it looks like anywhere else: a degraded landscape and seascape, supporting just a few generic exotic species.” Similarly, Readfearn brings in the representation of Australia as a country which would possibly be viewed negatively by asking, “If Australia is led by a Government doing nothing meaningful to tackle fossil fuel burning on its own shores while backing an export boom, then who knows how the country will be branded?” By creating an image of Australia after the effect of climate change have taken place, Monibot and Readfearn successfully position the reader to see the lack of action taken towards climate change by politicians negatively. This negative position then causes the audience to value the environmental assets that form part of Australia’s cultural representation.

Both of the texts studied use language to show that climate change is a relevant and important issue in Australian society. The texts successfully use language to position the audiences to question the result of neglecting to act on climate change, and the effect that it will have on the representation of Australia and its culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Readfearn, G. Planet Oz 2013. Australia. Hosted by The Guardian. [Accessed 12/09/2013]  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/05/australia-election-climate-change

 

Monbiot, G. If Abbott is elected, Australia’s natural wonders will gradually be rubbed away, 2013. Published on The Guardian. [Accessed 12/09/2013]  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/abbott-climate-change-election?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The Representation of Live Animal Export

How is the Australian live export industry represented by organisations and institutions?

The issue of live animal export has been prominent in Australian society for some time, however in recent years it has received more media coverage due to the increase in graphic and disturbing photos and footage which reveal the truth behind this industry. There have been many texts created to represent this particular problem, with the text creators either supporting the trade or positioning the reader against it. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) produced a short video titled ‘A chilled approach: better than live export’ in 2012 which describes the issues with the live export trade and also suggests possible solutions to this issue through the use of facts. Whilst the Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) also uses statistics to emphasise the need for a live export trade in order to maintain Australia’s economy.

 

The video created by the WSPA portrays the practice of live export as cruel and unnecessary and promotes a different method of meat trading. The video has no real footage or photos which is uncommon for a video promoting animal welfare, this would have been done to reach a wider audience and offend fewer people. The video shows a number of computer-generated images of cows on ships, the first being quite dramatic with blood dripping down the ship. This immediately makes the viewer think of death and positions the reader against live animal export. The video then goes on to make several statements about poor animal welfare and then shows a cow falling down in a cage and turning to a skeleton, again emphasising the high mortality rates on-board live export ships and aeroplanes. After this introduction the video becomes more positive, stating that a chilled-meat trade would improve animal welfare whilst still supplying farmers with money and people with jobs, which is the key reason why the government will not ban live export. The WSPA states that “A northern processing facility for cattle could mean $200 million to the regional economy, create 1300 jobs and could increase a northern beef farmer’s income by 245%”. These statistics are quite impressive and make the viewer consider why Australia hasn’t moved to a chilled meat trade as of yet. The WSPA is one of many organisations that produce videos such as the one discussed above and are key in making sure that the public are informed and able to create their own opinion.

 

The documents published by the DAFF promote the live export trade in Australia through the use of statistics. The site states that “In 2009, the live export sector earned $996.5 million and underpinned the employment of around 10,000 people in rural and regional Australia.” This makes the reader believe that live export is necessary to the Australian economy as it brings in a vast quantity of money. This website also says that:

“Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices…The government and the livestock export industry are working cooperatively with our trading partners to address the post-arrival welfare concerns and to improve the transportation, handling and slaughter practices of livestock in overseas markets.”

Whilst this statement is attempting to be positive it does acknowledge that there is a problem with animal welfare. For some readers this may cause them to question what the Government is telling them and do further research, especially in regards to voting at election times.

 

The representation of the live export industry varies greatly depending on who the text creators are. The WSPA and other animal welfare organisations reveal the harsh truth behind this trade through the use of statistics and usually graphic and disturbing photos and footage. Whilst the Government promotes the industry as an “Important part of Australia’s vibrant and growing livestock industry.” In order to decide ones’ own position on this particular issue it is crucial to examine a number of texts from a range of sources in order to avoid bias.

 

References:

The Australian ‘Separate polls reach different conclusions on live export trade’ August 15 2013 [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/separate-polls-reach-different-conclusions-on-live-export-trade/story-fn59niix-1226697894882 [Accessed 6/9/13]

WSPA, ‘Learn about live export: watch our videos’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.wspaliveexport.org.au/learn-about-live-export/watch-our-videos [Accessed 12/9/13]

Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ‘Live Animal Export Trade’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade [Accessed 12/9/13]

Australian Government: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ‘AQIS Mortality Investigations’ [ONLINE] Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/aqis-mortality-investigations [Accessed 12/9/13]

The Representation of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia on Marriage Equality – as seen on their respective websites

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party of Australia have different stances in regard to the issue of gay marriage, and on their official websites each have represented the issue very differently. While the liberal party stand strictly against gay marriage, the ALP have recently changed their position to stand for gay marriage. Initially, Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, stood against the issue, however in the lead up to the federal election, he changed his stance to support the movement. Whether this move was a genuine change of heart or an election gimmick remains to be seen.

 

The ALP’s website positions viewers to value marriage equality and foregrounds the issue. On their homepage there are two articles on it, with only one article for the other issues the page promotes. The articles position the viewer to value marriage equality and are presented in bright colours and use positive language. One of the articles that is advertised in ‘Jamie’s fight for equality’, the article shows a older man, beaming and wearing the rainbow symbol of equality. The man’s happiness is used to make the viewer see the ALP as a force of good in the gay community. The other article, is a YouTube video that presents the reforms the ALP has made for the gay community, this use of a highly visual medium is targeted at youth, those who find it easier to watch a video and spend more time on the internet. While the ALP has made many promises to the LGBTI community, they were initially against the move for gay marriage and there is the possibility that they are merely using the issue to increase their popularity among young voters.

 

In contrast to the ALP’s page, the Liberal’s have made the issue of gay marriage very difficult to find. From their home page another page must be accessed to find the option to search their site and after searching for marriage equality, the only mention of it is in transcripts of Q&A’s, where it is briefly mentioned. This silence in the Liberals site positions the viewer to accept that the issue of marriage equality is at worst, non existent and at best, of no concern. The position of the liberal party has always been against marriage equality, in the words of Mr. Abbott  “Obviously we have a clear position that we don’t support gay marriage as a party…”. The use of the word ‘obviously’ could reflect the length of time that the party has stood against the issue, however it could also be seen as influencing readers to assume that to stand against marriage equality is the obvious thing to do.

 

Both the ALP and the Liberal Party of Australia have very different views on marriage equality and represent those views very differently on their respective websites. While the Liberal party have a negative view on the issue, their integrity cannot be questioned as their representation of the issue reflects their historical stance. The ALP however, changed their stance very near the election and have flooded the media and their site with their support for the movement. After historically being completely against the issue, this sudden change of tactics could be seen by many as an election gimmick.

-Tom Roberston

Bibliography:

Tony Abbott transcript – Joint Doorstop Interview, Queanbeyan | Liberal Party of Australia. 2013. Tony Abbott transcript – Joint Doorstop Interview, Queanbeyan | Liberal Party of Australia. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/06/20/tony-abbott-transcript-joint-doorstop-interview-queanbeyan. [Accessed 6 September 2013].

 

Australian Labor Party. 2013. Australian Labor Party. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.alp.org.au. [Accessed 6 September 2013].

Marriage Equality In Australia

Marriage Equality Push in Australia

It is exciting to see that the Australian people have demanded a change in legislation with regard to gay marriage. Of course with Australia being a democratic nation one has to respect these requests by discussing them in parliament. But with a majority of politicians opposed to a conscience vote how can Australian people gain the right to be married to the one they love no matter what gender?

 

Recently in Parliament many labour MPs and Senators finally agreed to allow a change to the marriage act and to allow a conscience vote, however this surprising moment quickly turned sour after Julia Gillard and a few Labour Senators crossed sides to join Tony Abbott. Previously Abbott and Gillard had been more than happy to preach their anti-gay marriage opinions to the public and their fellow party members. This anti-gay stance potentially casts a discriminative persona on both of them and brings in to question Gillard’s leadership.

 

Gillard has made commonplace her stance on same-sex marriage. In doing so she has upset many Australians  who share opposing thoughts; however Miss Gillard assures that the government is changing discriminative legislation to give all homosexual couples the same rights (such as combined Medicare) that a “married couple” would have. Gillard hides the discriminative nature of her decision by offering alternatives aimed at satisfying same-sex couples.

 

Like Gillard and Abbott, Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis wishes to see the Marriage Act stay ‘straight’. Brandis gave explanations to the meaning of marriage, and how changing it could possibly upset people who value the words current meaning (06.00), “Marriage is a unique institution that has a deep cultural, and for most Australians religious significance” He also said that “it should not be changed until there is a significant community consensus in favour of doing so” Brandis touches on some deep meanings regarding the principle of marriage here, making the justification of disallowing same sex marriage seem reasonable. His comments, however, serve to postpone any change in the marriage act or a conscience vote.

 

In the last two years the fight for gay marriage has only increased, and it will continue to do so. The support of the Greens party, through retired Greens leader Bob Brown, who is homosexual, has shifted people’s attitudes throughout Australia. Brown was a devoted Christian during the time that he was discovering his sexuality and because of these conflicts he had a lot of trouble with accepting it and coming out. As well as being a doctor and the party leader of Greens Australia, Bob has long supported gay marriage and has become a symbol not just for homosexuals but for all Australians.

 

Brown and all other Greens Party members strongly believe that sexuality should not be discriminated, and people should be respected for who they are. The Green’s sexuality principles have been respected by the government and all but one have been enforced as legislation. Can you guess which principle that is?   Christine Milne addresses the Senate concerning the need for marriage equality in Australia. In her speech Milne mentioned that the UK, USA and NZ are all in the progress of allowing same sex marriage. What does this say for Australia? Does the progress in these democratic countries suggest there is discriminative nature within the Australian Government and/or Prime Minister Gillard? Milne aims her talk at those who deny the need for democratic evolution in this county and stresses the need for individual rights for all including the gay members of our society and the removal of all discrimination.

 

The facts gained from polling between 2009-2012 tell the story: the Greens and 64% of Australian people want marriage equality and 76% want a conscience vote. On the other hand Prime Minister Gillard, some of her devoted party followers, 36% of Australians and the entire Liberal Party wish to keep marriage as being between a man and woman. Undeniably we are a democratic country but denying rights by disallowing a conscious vote could result in genuine health concerns in the gay community and ignoring democratic principles. Julia Gillard said it herself that this country is moving forward, but when I comes to marriage equality we are moving very slowly. Hopefully In time the government will see the error of its ways and follow the new cultural and social norms like in UK, USA and NZ. Is a referendum a possible solution? Time will tell.

Mackenzie Reekie

 

References                                                        

Australian Marriage Equality online 2012. Available from: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/ (accessed 1st October 2012)

LAUREN WILSON From: The Australian September 19, 2012 ‘Julia Gillard sides with Coalition for gay marriage vote”  Available from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-sides-with-coalition-for-gay-marriage-vote/story-fn59niix-1226477336859 (accessed 1st October 2012)

ABC Q&A (Youtube) April 23, 2012. ‘God, Homosexuality and Bob Brown’. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCkWbeqpjE  (accessed 1st October 2012)

(Youtube) Christine Milne speech 17/9/2012. ‘Marriage equality’. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyQRubhx9g (accessed 2nd  October 2012)

ABC Q&A (Youtube) Aug 16, 2010. ‘Tony Abbott talks about gay marriage’. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSWlyhfvWUQ (accessed 2nd October 2012)

The Greens. The Green’s sexuality and gender identity principles. Available from:  http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/sexuality-and-gender-identity   (accessed 2nd October 2012)

Australian Labor (Youtube) Jul 17, 2010. Julia Gillard: ‘Let’s move Australia forward’. Available from:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyR2pu_pY_I&feature=related (accessed 2nd October 2012)

ABC Q&A (Youtube) 9 Aug, 2010. ‘Julia Gillard says No to Gay Marriage’ Available from:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Vbz4Tg3PM  (accessed 2nd October 2012)

ABC Q&A (Youtube) Nov 8, 2010. ‘Gay marriage question’ (accessed 2nd October 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5LLSdEWZA (accessed 2nd October 2012)

REFUGEES

Why are the refugee’s running? Religion, power, freedom or is the media portraying the refugees in real light over populating and dodging our laws. When researching into events and human rights the truth was reveled on why and the extends that refugees encounter.

Your legs pounding against the ground as your best friend chases you, your heart beating so fast as you don’t want to be “it” next.. your lungs filled with air and when the game is over your still as free as when the game was being played. Your sitting at catholic college in the church watching the “losers” pray while you think of when you can next suck the smoke in of your friends cigarette and laugh at the “pathetic” class you have just skipped.  One day in many Australians lives begin and finish this way, when so close there is an eleven year old running across a boarder bullet’s fired for that freedom and education we don’t think about much here at home.

 Kunchog a young monk attempted to run from Tibet in 2001, he in a group of 28 believed they would be safe once reaching Nepal, proven wrong. Believed that once crossing into Nepal meant escaping the Chinese border guards equaled safety though found that the Nepalese government is under increasing pressure from China to capture and return any fleeing Tibetans. Once reaching Nepal the group was arrested by the Nepalese soldiers, imprisoned for two days with all their belonging taken, once released attacked by the Nepalese soldiers being sprayed by bullets many of the group were shot. Being thrown into a truck by a soldier wounded and still being beaten the young monk was driven to a hospital in Kathmandu, here he was treated back to health though informed of his friends death, finally making it to India a changed man, thin and lost. When reading deep into this article the reasons behind why Kunchog was running was revealed, in an attempt to further his education and then pursue a dreamed career.

25 August 2012, a 17 year old girl was arrested and sentenced to a three year impressment for “splitting China” by the Kandzi County people Court. On the 28th of August the girl was transferred into another prison her family having no clue of her where abouts currently. The protest the girl was involved in consisted of her handing out Buddhist cards and yelling out slogans, after a short time Chinese surrounded her and beat her and placed in detention. These are two examples of why people are running from Tibet its prominent that there is no freedom of speech nor freedom in general, human rights, its clear from reading these two examples that China is powering and curl to the Tibetan people and it gives a reason to run and demonstrates the media perception in a negative light. 

When arriving to Australia via boat the options becomes slim for refugees due to the only permanent visa available for this instance is a protection visa, which may not be granted even if one comes from a country where there is violence and lack of security.  In 2010- 2011 its estimated 24 000 applications for the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) visas were applied though only 3000 visas were granted. Sadly many are running from violence due to power, land, money and religion. In many of these counties people are fleeing from there is no human rights, and no freedom of speech there are strict laws on education shattering dreams and a way of life which must be obeyed. While we attend class five days a week for six hours and complain the young men and women run for lives to gain what we take for granted. Families are broken risks are taken and lives are lost all for the freedom we take in like its owned to us. Hearing the stories shock me as the media portray the refugees as “more boat people” or “sink there boats send them back” Yes I agree its over populating and some methods are wrong but its amazing how children strive for education, how family risk all to give their children and their selves a better live. If our media put less money towards writing stats and slaga about this important issue and raised more money to shame the countries and push for human rights the amount of violence may decrease, and a change may begin.  

                                                                                              Bibliography

http://www.freetibet.org/newsmedia/teenage-protester-gets-three-years-prison

http://www.tchrd.org/

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154477.htm