*Trigger warning for discussion (and links to footage) of violence, particularly police violence*
Sadly police violence is a given. It’d be great to live in a world where police violence wasn’t the norm, particularly when it came to protests of various forms, but with protests against the establishment, particularly protests that go (or stay) where the establishment don’t want them to go (or stay), shit happens far too often.
Continue reading Occupy Melbourne and Police Violence
*Trigger warning for discussion of rape and relationship abuse*
So, dear exes… these songs are all for you.
For the pain, heartache, and torture you put me through during and after our relationship by being a complete and utter arsehat. For dumping me so you could be monogamous with your other girlfriend because she’d earlier dumped you and you’d never been dumped before. For so completely misunderstanding me and never asking me why I did something or what I was thinking. For emotionally abusing me for years, treating me like dirt, because the power got you off. For raping me and not listening to me say “no” and then being faux apologetic afterwards, “Let’s not do that again”, and then at the next opportunity pressuring me into having sex with you again. For failing to communicate effectively with me and instead just dumping announcements and changes on me, expecting that I’d be completely fine with them.
These are the breakup songs which speak to me and help me keep going on, the songs that help me know that I did nothing to deserve the pain that I went through, and that I sing with the other strong women (lyrics linked to in song titles).
The first is by Paul Mac, featuring Ngaiire, called, “It’s not me, it’s you“. I hadn’t actually seen the film clip to this song until tonight, and it’s awesome.
The second is by a relatively unknown (at least in Australia) indy band called Elizabeth and the Catapults – called “Momma’s Boy“. Because I relate to this song so much (and I like this song but it isn’t specifically breakup related).
The third is by Goyte, “Somebody that I used to know” featuring Kimbra, because I relate quite strongly to Kimbra’s part.
The fourth is Basement Jaxx featuring Lisa Kekaula, “Good Luck“, which is a great “FUCK YOU” song.
The fifth is Kelis with her song, “Caught Out There” (Trigger warning for abelism and depictions of violence).
And the final song is Vassy’s “Wanna Fly“.
Fucking hell, the Victorian Liberal Party, in their grand “law and order” plan, have decided that instead of having people who are charged with using:
language deemed to be indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening. (The Age)
go to court, a process which is time consuming and rarely successful (on the point of the prosecutors), that police will now be able to issue an on-the-spot fine of up to $240.
The Age article continues:
The crackdown — which extends the Baillieu government’s ever-growing law-and-order agenda — means police will be able to issue infringement notices for offensive behaviour and indecent language similar to parking and speeding fines.
Attorney-General Robert Clark said the idea was to lower the police workload by allowing them to issue fines instead of tackling bad language using the court system.
“It frees up police time for other law enforcement activities and enables them to more readily issue penalties against those offenders who deserve them,” Mr Clark said.
“By providing police with as many enforcement tools as possible, Parliament is sending a strong signal that people who engage in criminal behaviour can expect to be dealt with under the law.”
Offensive language has been an offence in Victoria since 1966. Swearing — if it is deemed serious enough — can carry a penalty of up to two years’ jail, and is even considered an offence if no one is present to hear it.
In truth, they’ve all been out of bounds since the Act was introduced in 1966, but until 2008 anyone thus charged had to have their case heard in court. That took time and effort and got in the way of more pressing cases. Frankly, who could blame the legal system if it collectively decided it really couldn’t be arsed to hear such matters – matters that Ross Garnaut might feasibly have described as “pissant”? (The Age -another article)
Because saying “FUCK” (and other swears) is clearly criminal behaviour. I didn’t know, until now, that “offensive language” was actually a real offence, and only had been since 1966. I’d also like to know what “offensive language” actually means. Sure it’s almost described with “indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening” language, but what does that really mean?
How will police define “indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening” language? Will some groups, as I suspect they will, receive far more leniency from police in relation to swearing than others? Will some groups who have threatening language used towards them (those who are not white, the homeless, the LBGTIQ community, etc) really have an effective response from the police if they report the language used against them?
It has been suggested that this is just an attempt at revenue raising by the Victorian State Government, and I’m inclined to agree. Instead of ensuring that minority groups who already have existing issues with police are protected adequately, this will be further power for some police to put the boot in even more.
Then there is the cultural impact – the fact that people can (and probably will) be fined for swearing at sporting events, live music concerts (Yeah, how is Cee-Lo (warning for NSFW swears) ever going to perform his song in Victoria?), comedy, or the theatre? The Melbourne International Comedy Festival (one of the biggest comedy festivals in Australia -possibly the third biggest in the English speaking world), is worried that the new laws will impact on the festival next year.
Comedian Wil Anderson yesterday tweeted in response to the news. “Victoria announced on-the-spot fines of $240 for indecent language. Suddenly my [comedy festival] show is going to cost me a lot more next year.”
…
Melbourne International Comedy Festival director Susan Provan said she was taking a wait-and-see approach. “We at the Comedy Festival will be waiting with bated breath for news on what does and does not constitute swearing,” she said. However, she added that the festival may need to consider hiring people “with bleepers in all areas of our activity”.
…
The Baillieu government is pitching this as part of its ever-expanding law-and-order agenda, but the cynically inclined might wonder if it is not also a blatant revenue-raising exercise. Given the difficulty of successfully prosecuting someone for swearing (or, more broadly, offensive language) in court, this is by and large money the government would not otherwise have had. (The Age)
The Age article the excerpt above is from also defines all the places in which it will be illegal to swear – and about the only place you will be able to swear will be in the privacy of your own home – provided that the public is not gathering there – so not when you’re having a party probably.
In fact, there is little agreement even on what constitutes “offensive” language in 2011, as distinct from 1966. One man’s meat is another man’s cruelly harvested animal flesh, as it were.
In a much-noted ruling in 2002, NSW magistrate David Heilpern observed of the F word that “one would have to live an excessively cloistered existence not to come into regular contact with the word, and not to have become somewhat immune to its suggested previously legally offensive status”. (The Age)
With no fucking clue as to what constitutes offensive language, the potential for this new police power to be massively misused is very high. Personally I’d take the fine to court and ask that the 2002 NSW ruling be taken into account, if I was fined by the police for swearing. I have that luxury and privilege. Those who have minimal incomes, minimal support, and/or an unfamiliarity with the Australian Justice System are going to struggle to have the fine waived, and in many cases struggle to pay the fine.
This is not a law which does anyone any favours if all the attention is put on “offensive” and none on “threatening”. I’d like to see “threatening” strengthened, and a real discussion about whether or not we need to be protected from swears when we’re out in public these days.
Dear Mr Shaw (and Mr Baillieu),
I am appalled that you responded to Mr Quilligan’s email with the following:
You state that you ” want to work, live and love freely during the course of my life, and I want to do that without thinking that I can’t”. What if I loved driving 150kms per hour in residential areas? What if there was a convicted sex offender who stated that, or a child molester? Can they still do what they want? Under your statement the answer is yes.
You equated a consensual adult relationships to two illegal activities. Last I checked (regardless of what you actually feel about the topic), same sex relationships were not illegal – however paedophilia and speeding are both illegal activities with a great deal of societal harm attached to them. So you suggested that Mr Quilligan’s desire to “love freely during the course of [his] life” was the equivalent to a paedophile or sex offender raping someone. Seriously? Were you thinking straight when you said that?
Continue reading An open letter to Geoff Shaw and the Victorian Liberal Party
[Trigger warning – this post discusses sexual abuse and the articles linked in this post may contain graphic descriptions of sexual abuse]
Say what you like about Derryn Hinch, and I’ve said plenty before, but he certainly has chosen a cause that makes me grateful he’s still around annoying everyone. I always thought that Hinch was like a bulldog… he’d grab a story, an idea, or even a misrepresentation and keep at it until he’d made a point, and given his current campaign against sexual abuse landing him in trouble, you’d think that maybe he’d back off and find something else to campaign against.
But no… this is Derryn Hinch, and he is a bulldog. He wrote an article in The Sunday Age regarding a church elder/founder who stands accused of abusing the position of trust that he held within that organisation through sexually abusing a woman who had survived sexual abuse as a child from her family. Being Derryn Hinch, which kinda means he has different ways and means that the average person, he grabbed this story and ran… tugged… whatever it is that bulldogs do. He broke this story for The Age, and I suspect we’ll hear more about it and the fallout, especially as the alleged abuser claims he has not resigned his position within his church/thing despite the officials of the church/thing claiming he has.
Is there a point here? Not overly… I do like being surprised by people in unexpected ways, even after I’ve decided I don’t like them. I still think that Hinch is an over opinionated shock-jock, but there appears to be common ground between him and I that I never thought I’d find.
Look, look… they’re doing it too, so we’re not bad… Everyone else is doing it!
http://www.theage.com.au/world/vatican-responds-to-sex-abuse-accusations-20090929-gb1p.html
Hardly.
And adults who have sex with children are paedophiles, not “homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males”… because that’s a sorry attempt to link homosexuality with paedophilia again. Research has demonstrated that homosexuality and paedophilia are not linked. If the clergy who were abusing children were homosexual, why aren’t they off having sex with other adult men? Yes, crickets chirping again… how many gay people do you know? How many of them have sexual interest in children? I don’t know a single one. I’m not saying that there many not be a paedophile who may also be homosexual, but its not homosexuals who are paedophiles… if anything, it may the other way around in a small number of cases. Men who prey sexually on boys (and children) usually self-identify as straight.
When The Vatican actually stops sheltering those of its clergy who are breaking not only the laws of the countries in which they are working, but also the Commandment that Jesus gave to love one another as He had loved them, then hopefully things might start to improve. That does involve a complete restructure of the power structures within the Catholic Church, and that requires a religion willing to change. One day a reformist might manage to wrest the Pope-hood from the cooling corpse of the previous Pope, but I don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime, and I’ve got another good 50 years in me.
I heartily approve of this quote from the article above:
Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, said: ”Comparative tragedy is a dangerous path on which to travel. All of us need to look within our own communities. Child abuse is sinful and shameful and we must expel them immediately from our midst.”