Uh, Scott, I hate to be the one to point this out, but workplace conflict “between one set of employees and another set of employees” is already present.

It’s a widespread, high-impact conflict called the gender pay gap. You’re obviously familiar with it. It involves people being systemically paid much less than their penis-owning but otherwise equally qualified colleagues.

Accounting for this conflict accurately, business by business, industry by industry, is an essential step towards eliminating it (not just “narrowing” it, you misogynistic asshole).

One doesn’t resolve or avoid conflict by denying its existence, Scott. Then again, you have a trophy for the boats you “stopped” by denying their existence, so I guess this is business as usual for you?

The post SBS: “‘Not constructive’: PM dismisses plan for companies to reveal pay gap” appeared first on Luke Arms.

Annoyingly, I think parts of both arguments have merit. Is it possible that they’re both right?

There is undeniable truth in Billie Jean King’s comment on Twitter:

When a woman is emotional, she’s “hysterical” and she’s penalized for it. When a man does the same, he’s “outspoken” & and there are no repercussions. Thank you, @serenawilliams, for calling out this double standard. More voices are needed to do the same.

Even I’ve watched enough Grand Slams to know that male players are routinely far less deferential to umpires than Serena was, and they are barely ever penalised. Whoever might have otherwise won, it’s undeniable that this umpire’s sexism changed the outcome of the game, and Serena was completely justified in railing against it. Whether it was wilful or unconscious sexism isn’t at all relevant–sexism ought to be challenged, in all of its forms, in elite sport and everywhere else.

Meanwhile, I totally sympathise with Naomi Osaka, whose phenomenal success has been overshadowed by this controversy. She deserved an opportunity to play in her first Grand Slam without any of this drama. The same is true for all elite female athletes–they should be treated as equal to their male counterparts, unencumbered by sexism and misogyny. But in sport, as in life, the patriarchy is still far from smashed, and the results continue to be messy.

Let’s not make the mistake of blaming Serena for distracting us all from Naomi’s victory. Responsibility for that rests solely with the male umpire who treated her in a particular way because she’s a woman.

Surely we’ve learned to stop blaming women for the mistakes of men by now?

PS: congratulations on your win, Naomi. I’m sorry that it’s been tainted.

The post Serena v. Naomi (or not) appeared first on Luke Arms.

They “own” marriage

They believe the word/institution/sacrament known as “marriage” is solely occupied by the version of marriage they teach and practice within their churches. They do not consider the long secular history of marriage relevant, nor do they care that the Marriage Act is secular legislation that stands completely separate from any faith-based definition of the word.

They care about all marriages “equally”

Flagrant disregard for the sanctity of marriage among heterosexual non-Christians isn’t a priority for them (it’s a secular institution, after all). They are saddened by high divorce rates and widespread domestic violence between spouses, but when gay couples choose stable monogamy and want access to the legal rights of marriage, nothing else matters (because marriage is first and foremost a Judeo-Christian tradition, when it suits them).

They are “victims”

Their perceived ownership of “marriage” is so entrenched that when the validity of their arguments is challenged, they feel persecuted and refuse to engage with the substance of their own statements (much less any counter-arguments that are presented). They claim to be in a fierce battle for the preservation of marriage and believe they are part of the vulnerable minority. They cannot see their overwhelming privilege, nor the damage they’re doing to the actual victims: LGBTQ+ people and their families, all of whom are (in Christian-speak) “made in God’s image” and completely deserving of full participation in every aspect of society.

They are “loving”, not hateful

Because they never get sweary or violent, and because they are taught to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” (not a concept that appears in Bible, incidentally – it’s a Mahatma Gandhi quote), they will not accept that their demeaning words and actions are anything but “speaking the truth in love”. Many can’t even see that petitioning the government to refuse marriage to same-sex couples is a method of forcing their beliefs on others. Instead, they think it’s “loving” to “protect” people from “invalid marriages”.

When told their hatred is driving people away from Christianity — by the very people who are being driven away — they feel comfort, not pain. They’ve been taught to expect offence from unbelievers, and that being “in the world, but not of the world” should entail exactly this type of rejection. They must be doing something right!

What can be done about these “Christians”?

Nothing.

They are ignorant and abusive, and choose to remain so. We can only remove ourselves from their company, vote them out of office, outnumber them, and defeat them.

And while we’re doing it, we must relentlessly love all the people they hate.

Today, that’s the entire Australian LGBTQ+ community.

My friends, know that I love you and am standing beside you, along with so many others, to help you take what should already be rightfully yours.

The post Ah, the futility: debating marriage equality with “those” Christians appeared first on Luke Arms.

The majority of my Christian friends have petitioned the government to review the Safe Schools program (or opposed it in some other way), insisting that it’s more than an anti-bullying program. There’s widespread concern (1) that it’s a vehicle for gay activism and recruitment, (2) that it “normalises” LGBTI desires and behaviours, and (3) that it is coercing children to doubt their own sexuality.

To each of these concerns, I say this:

1. “It’s gay activism!” First, you can’t “catch the gay”. Second, it’s horrific to treat LGBTI people like they have a contagious disease. Third, please check out the Safe Schools curriculum for yourself rather than letting douchecanoes like Lyle Shelton from the Australian ‘Christian’ Lobby tell you what to think. (Bear in mind that each school, in consultation with its community, adapts the curriculum to suit its own students.)

2. “It normalises being gay and being trans!” It’s an anti-bullying program. Of course it’s aiming to “normalise” LGBTI people. They are, after all, normal people, with much more to offer the world than the particulars of their sexuality, which is only one part of their identity. Failing to “normalise” the targets of bullying would be a pretty fundamental failure for a program like this, given bullying relies on a sense of “us vs. them”.

3. “It forces straight kids to reconsider their sexuality!” Again, you can’t “catch the gay,” and coercion is not the same thing as teaching a group of children to genuinely empathise with people who are, say, same-sex attracted, or experiencing transsexual desires, or living with two mums. Obviously some kids who are already wrestling with the possibility of being LGBTI will feel empowered to open up about it in a safe environment, i.e. a “Safe School” that actively puts the issue on the table for respectful discussion. This is a Good Thing, not coercion or recruitment. (And if you’re going to make egregious claims like these, do back them up with evidence.)

To Christian parents who believe gay sex is wrong, and want to encourage their children to believe likewise: no-one is trying to control what you teach at home, nor is Safe Schools content aimed at vulnerable infants. Talk to your kids about this stuff. Start early. But most of all, teach them to follow Jesus in showing radical love, especially to minorities and outcasts, and model that love yourself. (Side note: do you really want to be kept out of the loop if your own child is LGBTI?)

I’m an Australian Christian and I support the Safe Schools Coalition. Also, Cory Bernardi’s homophobic witchhunt review should be dumped (along with Cory himself, preferably).

The post Safe Schools: I’m a Christian and I love it appeared first on Luke Arms.

Not all writing is for reading quietly. The words below were spoken at a pro-diversity rally held to stand against a hateful, anti-Muslim “Reclaim Australia” rally in Cessnock. We were one street away from tbe “reclaimers”, with a thin blue line of police keeping us separated. Thankfully there were no incidents.

Here’s what I said. My first ever rally speech.

I’m honoured to be here today … honoured to stand with you, my fellow Australians, confidently asserting the freedom we all share to worship however we please, wherever we please … but also honoured to speak as one citizen on behalf of many other citizens … and my message today is very simple:

Our unity is powerful. OUR UNITY IS POWERFUL.

When so many around us are doing everything in their power to divide us, our unity is powerful. It sends a message to cowards in Syria … and to bigots in Newcastle … and to social media trolls wherever they might live on Internet … it sends a message that love is greater than fear … it sends a message that the differences between us can strengthen us rather than tearing us apart … it sends a message that a brighter future awaits all of us when we start by turning towards our neighbours with open hearts and open arms.

Our unity — right here, right now, in this place — is powerful, but the unity we’re displaying here today, the unity we’re urging all Australians to embrace — this unity doesn’t come easy. Unity between people who think the same, look the same and talk the same is easy, but that’s because it’s not really unity! Real unity is when people who are fundamentally different come together, engage with each other even when it’s uncomfortable, and ultimately find ways to work towards shared goals. Real unity makes room for differences between people. Real unity doesn’t expect people to become the same as each other. Real unity is what we see here today, and as I’ve said already, it is powerful.

Of course part of the reason we’re here today is because some of our neighbours believe in a uniform Australia. They say we should be all white, or all Christian, and they’re standing particularly firm against the growth of Muslim communities in Australia.

I would prefer to ignore these people and the groups they lead, but sometimes we must respond directly to ignorance and fear and bigotry. So, by way of response to Reclaim Australia and its small but ferocious band of supporters, I have a few important things to say to my Muslim friends. I’m standing here as a white Christian who welcomes Muslims to live and worship and thrive in Australia — and not just in Australia, but right here in the Hunter Region — in Newcastle — in Cessnock — wherever freedom and opportunity might lead you.

I know your worldview is not the same as those who do evil in the name of Islam — in much the same way as Christian tyrants do not represent me. I do not see you as my enemies but as my allies. I’m glad your communities in this region are growing and do not feel in any way threatened by you or by the buildings you need in order to accommodate that growth. I know I speak for many, many others when I say that I love you, that I stand with you, and that I honour you for the courage you show every day as you endure words and deeds of vilification that have no rightful place in this country.

Our unity is powerful and I believe it will ultimately undo the work of those who seek to divide and destroy. In fact, it’s pretty much the only thing that can heal our broken nation. Let’s continue to stand together, not just as we rally against racism and bigotry together, but in our words and deeds and every day.

The post My speech at last month’s Rally Against Racism appeared first on Luke Arms.

Another Melbourne Cup has come and gone, and most of Australia has had a fabulous time pretending not to notice that the centrepiece of their frocked-up outings / office sweeps / drunken gambling was a race in which humans used whips to force animals more athletic than themselves to run so fast they might die.

Here’s my Facebook post on the topic:

There’s no nice way to say this.

If you placed a bet on today’s race, or found some other way to actively participate in Melbourne Cup festivities, then you–yes, YOU–are complicit in the flogging and maiming and killing of beautiful animals for no purpose other than your own entertainment.

This unforgivably cruel industry only exists because it’s profitable, and it’s only profitable because of people like you.

I say this not to make you feel guilty, but in the hope that next time a day like this comes around, you will stand against cruelty and injustice.

Together, we can end this national disgrace.

Of course there’s more to Melbourne Cup Day than cruelty to horses (which isn’t limited to one day of the year anyway). There’s also the destructiveness of the gambling; the repulsiveness of the drunkenness / waste / rubbish; the barely concealed money laundering by criminals; and perhaps worst of all, the millions of dollars of government funding that subsidises the whole sorry mess.

Ah, Straya. The land of shameful parties too sacred to cancel.

At least we’re not as bad as ancient Rome.

The post Whipping horses for fun: another great Aussie tradition appeared first on Luke Arms.

I’ll give you a clue: it’s not [just] Peta Credlin.

The post Who’s really running Australia? appeared first on Luke Arms.

Whoever decided to launch The Guardian in Australia: thank you.

Love the last two paragraphs of this piece:

Nobody is saying we should stop talking about the fires and talk about global warming instead. With the Greens working harder than anyone else to get more resources for emergency services, certainly nobody is saying we should stop battling the bushfires and tackle global warming instead.

Only when we’re smart enough to do both at the same time will we truly be fighting fires.

Click through for all of the reasoning.

The post “Why we need to politicise the bushfires” appeared first on Luke Arms.

Then, I received this in the opening lines of her June e-newsletter:

While Julia Gillard leads a chaotic, divided and dysfunctional government which has no plans for Australia’s future, we have a plan to deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. To read more about our plans visit www.realsolutions.org.au.

“Chaotic” and “divided”? Maybe. The ALP’s leadership shenanigans could certainly be described in this way, although it’s remarkably united on actual, you know, policy. But “dysfunctional” and with “no plans for Australia’s future”? It’s a bit of a stretch to call a government that’s doing well on every KPI except public opinion* “dysfunctional”, and with Julia so clearly staking her political future on Gonski et al, I’d say the ALP’s plans for Australia are clearer than ever (whether you like them or not).

So, I tweeted this (click here to see a few follow-ups):

Got Jaimie Abbott’s latest email blast. Resisted urge to voluntarily lose hair.

Less than 24 hours later, I received this email from Jaimie (who isn’t on Twitter, incidentally):

Luke, considering your online comments about how you feel about my newsletter, I have now unsubscribed you – so you won’t have to worry about receiving future ones. I added you in good faith & I’m sorry you feel that way.

Take care.

Odd. Considering she had offered to subscribe me to her “event invitation list” despite knowing my thoughts on the LNP’s current [lack of] policy. And that I had accepted in order to be kept in the loop on her upcoming public debates and forums (given she seems allergic to any other form of public-access communication with anyone who doesn’t agree with her).

I sent this reply:

Jaimie,

So.. you’re on Twitter now? Do let me know your handle, I’d like to follow along. Or was it one of your nameless supporters** who alerted you to my tweets?

Either way, I make no apology for them. To accuse a government implementing Gonski, the NDIS and a bunch of other reforms of having “no plan for the future” is stupid, whether you agree with their plan or not. I KNOW you’re smarter than that. To say it when your big plan for Australia’s future is to cut funds to everything (except high-income parents), to “stop the [not-actually-illegal] boats” (despite having no international agreements in place for this) and to all-but-deny anthropogenic climate change is laughable.

I accepted YOUR invitation to your mailing list so I could be informed when your public debates occur. You knew my views and should have expected lies and vitriol in your mailings to be outed via the means available to me. Your response today is childish and petty, and I can only assume it belies overall disinterest in robust political debate in any public forum.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised. And you’d better believe I’ll be doing my job as an elector to insist on more facts and less fluff from you and your party in coming months (of course the same goes for the other major party, though right now their policy platform is pretty clear).

It seems the LNP’s strategy is to ride the tide of public opinion to office, without ever being held accountable for anything they say. Given they have no truth or intelligence or detail with which to defend their current “policy” platform, I guess they don’t have any other option.

Let’s defy Rupert and Tony, and turn public opinion around. Shall we?

* “being humane in general” is another disappointing KPI for Labor, but it’s not like the LNP have anything better on offer.

** I’ve received several scathing Twitter attacks from anonymous lovers of Jaimie. Oddly, no-one in agreement with me has felt the need to hide their identity..

The post Cone of silence update #3 (a.k.a. the Jaimie Abbott affair) appeared first on Luke Arms.

If you’ve bought into the hysteria over Australia’s “economy in crisis” and/or believe Tony Abbott when he talks about our “budget emergency”, you need to click through and read Mr Denmore’s latest post. Follow the links if you doubt any of his assertions, and ask yourself if you’ve been allowing an offshore tyrant to tell you what to think.

[NB: there’s a lot about the ALP I don’t like, but for all of its flaws, it’s the only federal party making any attempt to work with Actual Facts and Credible Policy right now. If you get your news from mainstream outlets, you probably don’t believe me, which begs the question: why are facts and policy struggling to find oxygen in Australia? I think it’s because: 1. Rupert Murdoch and friends have vested interests and too much power; and 2. it takes brainless hysteria and xenophobic conservatism to keep the average Australian interested. Or, to put it another way, you’d have to be ADD to vote for the LNP.]

The post Dear Australia, please stop being Rupert Murdoch’s bitch appeared first on Luke Arms.

Luke,

I don’t use Twitter.

Please understand I receive over 300 emails a day from members in my electorate and I don’t have a single paid staff member. I also work full time on top of being a candidate. I personally reply to every single email that comes my way and I personally manage my entire Facebook page myself. At the moment I can’t keep up with replying to and fro with a million comments on Facebook so if people have specific concerns I ask them to write me an email so I can add it to the queue to reply. Everyone else has been happy to do this. With such a high volume of emails, it usually takes me around a week or so to reply.

I apologise if this method isn’t suitable for you and you don’t believe this is substance and instead you preferred me to go back and forward on Facebook and therefore delaying replies to other email questions from others in the queue, but I’m just one human being. As a Candidate at the moment that’s all I am physically able to do. I have a huge challenge in trying to win a seat which has never been held by a Liberal MP and I am trying to meet and respond to as many people as possible.

If you actually live in my electorate, and have specific concerns please email me with your suburb and I will endeavour to reply.

Our policies are found at www.realsolutions.org.au

I will also be engaging in numerous live debates between now and the election, and I would invite you to come along and watch.

Thanks,

Regards
Jaimie Abbott | Liberal for Newcastle

I was genuinely surprised to hear that the LNP are offering so little support to Jaimie, given their obvious hopes for her campaign. I just sent this in reply:

Hi Jaimie,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I’m sorry to hear you’re so under-resourced for this campaign. I hope you – and your electorate – will be treated with more respect by the LNP as September 14 approaches.

Speaking of electorates, I’m actually in Charlton at this time, but yours is the only face I see in ads and banners, and given Kevin Baker appears to have zero presence anywhere (not even a profile on the LNP website), it seems you’re the only hope for the Liberal Party in this region. I’ve opened communications with you on that basis, and on behalf of those in my network who DO live in your electorate but are too disaffected with your party to even start the conversation. I can assure you they’re following with interest.

I remain frustrated (to put it mildly) by your gagging of discussion on Facebook (it is, after all, a social media platform, not a blogging platform), but I do understand your choice of protocol. That said, if you’re overwhelmed by correspondence, wouldn’t it make sense to collate the questions and address them once-for-all in a public context, i.e. online somewhere? (not necessarily Facebook!)

I appreciate that constructive social media interaction is difficult, especially without any staff, but as one voter who is desperate for Australian politics to actually mean something, I still contend that there must be something between the vacuous slogans of www.realsolutions.org.au (surely even you must be ashamed of that website), and managing hundreds of private emails. Something sustainable for you, that will provide voters with something to sink their teeth into!

Or perhaps the real issue is that you can’t be seen to offer more constructive policy discussion than your party’s leaders?

Anyway, I’ll leave all of this for you to consider, and I do look forward to the rest of your campaign. Meanwhile, I’ll try to devise some creative and sustainable solutions to this communication challenge. I would love to be able to facilitate a new form of collaborative dialog between political candidates and the public. Failing that, I’ll certainly check in closer to September 14 if there are still insufficient details on the table!

Good luck,

Luke

That’s it, for now. There will be plenty of time to follow up.

The post Cone of silence update #2 appeared first on Luke Arms.

I’ve decided to pursue this lack of transparency to the fullest extent possible.

First, this email to Jaimie:

Hi Jaimie,

Unfortunately I didn’t see your reply to my post on your page before it was deleted it and I was blocked … perhaps you could fill me in?

Meanwhile, here’s a little more context for you:

[link to my personal Facebook post on the matter]

More on Twitter, if you’re not too busy. I promise I won’t delete it.

I’m sure you can understand my disappointment re: your unwillingness to participate in public discussion of LNP policy. Given you’re asking for my vote, I would expect you to be jumping at the opportunity to demonstrate that you have political substance across a wide range of issues. Regurgitating LNP press releases is not substance. Photo ops are not substance. Private email correspondence, however impressive yours may be, is not substance.

You, and your party, need to offer some insightful, compassionate, responsible, visionary, detailed policy. You’ve put your name next to the LIBERAL logo in this electorate, which means you’re asking me to help you form a Coalition government as my representative, and I don’t think a little substance is too much to ask in exchange. I will do everything in my power to extract it from you – or to spread the word about your lack of it – between now and September 14.

FYI, I don’t have any affiliation with any political party at this time.

Here’s to the next 5-ish months!

Cheers,

Luke

I’ll keep you informed.

The post Cone of silence update #1 appeared first on Luke Arms.

Jaimie, I notice you’ve ignored/deleted a significant number of posts, from me and others, where legitimate questions were asked and thoughtful policy critique was offered. Looking through your page just now, I see nothing remains that in any way questions the coalition or its policy platform.

Given you are standing as a Liberal for the federal seat of Newcastle and hope to play a significant role in leading this country, I urge you to communicate openly with constituents via all available means, and to avail yourself of the opportunity social media provides to do this transparently. Asking people with inconvenient questions to move the discussion to email is cowardly and shows little respect for the office you intend to hold as this region’s representative in Parliament.

None of the posts I made contravened the social media policy you’ve published here, and all were significantly more edifying than most of your own party’s contributions to, say, question time in Canberra. So, why were they deleted? Do you intend to communicate openly with those you’re asking to represent? Are you interested in adding a little substance to the political conversation in this country? Or are you just another victim of Tony’s cone of silence?

Will she respond publicly? N/N

The post Politicians + cone of silence = me + red flag appeared first on Luke Arms.

Click through for an excellent piece on why shutting down Boston was just the latest victory for terrorists who target the US. Love this line:

What terrorists want is to terrify people; Americans always oblige.

And regarding an attack on London:

I happened to be in London on 7/7—a far more deadly and frightening terrorist attack—and by 7 P.M. on that horrible day, with the terrorists still at large (they were dead already, but no one knew that), the red double-decker buses were rolling and the traffic was turning and life, though hardly normal, was determinedly going on.

Civil liberties aside, maybe it’s time for America to grow a pair.

The post Terror is especially terrifying in the USA appeared first on Luke Arms.

Follow the link for Google’s announcement re: their latest Google Fiber rollout. It’s like Australia’s National Broadband Network, but Google’s doing it.

Yay! Something to love about Google!

[Unless, of course, they’re rolling out Google Fiber just to increase the speed with which they can collect your data. Hmm…]

Anyway, here’s the bit Malcolm Turnbull needs to read, very slowly, to Tony Abbott:

We believe the Internet’s next chapter will be built on gigabit speeds, and we hope this new Google Fiber city will inspire communities across America to think about what ultrafast connectivity could mean for them.

No offence, Mr. Shadow Minister for Communications, but your National Dial-Up Network policy is an absolute joke. I do hope your boss will allow you to resume the use of your very capable brain in the not-too-distant future.

The post Unlike the Liberal Party of Australia, Google knows how to be good appeared first on Luke Arms.

Click through for an excellent piece on the latest round of xenophobia they’re trying to call politics:

My father might have suggested a close watch on the mean coots in Parliament.

The post Refugees vs. paedophiles appeared first on Luke Arms.

Government funding for schools is a Big Topic (just ask Gonski), but here’s a summary of what I think about private vs. public school funding.

At first, it seems simple. Private schools receive income from fees, alumni donations, side businesses, investment returns and more, so it must be a waste of Taxpayers’ Money¹ for them to be given the the same level of government funding as public schools. And if they get MORE money than public schools, well, that’s just outrageous! Right?

If only it were actually so simple.

For starters, it’s difficult to establish a fair comparison between different schools. It’s certainly not as simple as “school A gets $X of government funding per student, vs. $Y per student in school B.” One must allow for variations in demography, facilities, projected growth, private funding levels and more. It’s irresponsible to ignore the complexities of these factors (not that some journalists seem to care).

But if it’s true that private schools get more from the government than their public counterparts (and it probably is), I’m not convinced that taxpayers should fret. Here’s my rationale:

Schools populated by parents willing to make a significant financial contribution to the education of their children should be actively encouraged by the government.

In other words, if the endgame is quality education, then schools full of kids who WANT quality education should not be left behind funding-wise. They should be fully equipped to make potent investments in the future of Australia: the minds of its brightest children.

That said, quality education isn’t the only endgame. We must also offer a viable, competitive education to ALL Australian children, whether or not their parents can afford to send them to a private school, whether or not they’re bright enough to get a scholarship to one, and whether or not their parents even believe in the value of education.

Should this be achieved at the expense of schools that value-add enough to be able to supplement government funds with school fees and other private sector income? You know my answer.

And I haven’t even started on the student welfare benefits of (many) private schools. These can dramatically increase the value of education for some students, but that’s for another day.

¹ I hate this phrase. It’s only ever used manipulatively, or at the expense of the Big Picture. I was demonstrating manipulation here!

The post On private school funding appeared first on Luke Arms.

We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this.

So said Barack Obama today.

His words gave me hope that he might finally be the President to lead the US away from its insane gun culture and the equally insane laws it has created.

Yes, the man pulling the trigger was ultimately responsible for the horror of the last 24 hours, but the nation that made such powerful weapons available to him is also guilty.

America, you are out of time. You are the only western nation to collectively believe that civilian guns increase public safety. You are wrong. There are rivers of blood flowing in your schools to prove it.

Fix it.

Your irrelevant second amendment be damned.

The post “Meaningful action” appeared first on Luke Arms.

Tim Halliburton, Media Relations Manager for the Salvation Army in Sydney, eventually replied (on 10 September – after the election). Here’s what he said:

Hi Luke,

Thanks for getting in touch and apologies for the delay in responding.

In regards to your enquiry, The Salvation Army in the Hunter region is simply saying a ‘thank you’ to Mr McCloy for his generous support to us for our work in the local community. We need to be clear that all Mr McCloy’s involvement with the Salvos was prior to him being involved in politics. Trust this clarifies the situation a bit further and please let me know if there’s anything else we can do for you.

Thanks again for your support.

Meanwhile, Neil Raymond, a prominent local Salvation Army member, posted on McCloy’s Facebook page re: a phone conversation he had with Salvos HQ, who indicated that a $1.5m “donation” had been made around the same time the Salvos endorsed the campaign.

The plot thickens!

Here’s my reply to Tim:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for getting back to me. I’m sure it was no accident that your reply came after the election ;)

Unfortunately your email didn’t really help clarify what happened in the lead-up to McCloy claiming Salvation Army endorsement for his mayoral campaign (which, like it or not, is what actually happens when you allow “thank you” footage to be used in political advertising). Given other anomalies in Jeff’s campaign, and the fact that he subsequently won the mayoral race and will hold office in Newcastle for the next 4 years, I’m sure you can appreciate my ongoing concern that allowing yourselves to be bought in this way will damage both the Salvation Army and the city of Newcastle. I hope I’m wrong!

Thanks again for your time,

Luke

I’m not going to pursue this any further, but I hope someone else will.

Good luck, Newcastle.

The post The Salvation Army (eventually) replied appeared first on Luke Arms.

Hi,

Did you know that Jeff McCloy is running TV ads claiming Salvation Army support for his run for local office? See here:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=413203875406178

I wouldn’t have expected the Salvation Army to align itself with any specific political cause. Did you authorise this message?

[NB: I’m not at all involved in this election, except as a concerned voter who doesn’t want to see the Salvos name trashed.]

Cheers,

Luke

Will keep you posted.

The post Do the Salvos really support Jeff McCloy? appeared first on Luke Arms.

Abbott lies relentlessly because he is allowed to. It’s about time more journos did their job. For us. The people. Who are supposed to want to spend money on their reporting. So their bosses won’t have to, you know. Sack them?

The post Journalists: for goodness’ sake, DO THIS MORE. appeared first on Luke Arms.

If I had sufficient talent, I would have written something like this. It perfectly expresses why I’m so profoundly dismayed by last night’s mass murders in Colorado, and the complete lack of courageous American leadership in their wake.

The collective stupidity of the USA on this issue is mind-boggling. And utterly depressing.

The post One. More. Massacre. appeared first on Luke Arms.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Maybe Australia should inscribe these words on its own Statue of Liberty. I’m thinking… the Sydney Heads?

The post Welcome to Australia (if only) appeared first on Luke Arms.

It’s a desperate, powerful story that we mustn’t forget anytime soon.

Or have we already forgotten?

Our courts still don’t know how to handle disagreements between forensic scientists.

Our journalists are even more brazenly engaged in trial-by-media.

And we still believe that members of religious groups are [probably] nuts.

Oh Azaria, we’re such slow learners.

The post Azaria. Is it too late to learn? appeared first on Luke Arms.

Also, I’m loving The Conversation.

The post Climate change is starting to hurt. appeared first on Luke Arms.

It’s complicated.

The post Some truth on Syria appeared first on Luke Arms.

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

Barack Obama

The post Barack Obama on same sex marriage appeared first on Luke Arms.

===

Hi,

You may or may not know that today is the final day for submissions to the Australian Senate inquiry into marriage. The Australian Christian Lobby is urging all Christians to make submissions to the Inquiry. In that spirit of civic engagement, I hope you consider doing so today. But before you do (and a submission will only take a couple of minutes) please consider the following about the arguments made by Christian leaders on our behalf against legalising same sex marriage.

Arguments by Christians against legalising same sex marriage

An introduction from Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis:

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” – Mere Christianity, Chapter 6, Book III.

Biblical

However our views are formed by scripture, public laws and policies cannot be solely based on our reading of scripture. Otherwise Christian leaders should campaign for Australian law to prohibit people of different faiths from marrying, for it to criminalise divorce, adultery, sex before marriage and homosexual sex – among other things widely seen as prohibited in biblical teaching. I doubt that most Christians would employ such a simplistic view of how Scripture applies to public policy, although some blog posts and circular emails suggest a number do. A more credible approach might be to appeal to the general welfare of society. Yet is hard not to see an inconsistency in the Church’s campaign whereby laws affecting same sex relationships receive enormous energy whilst our leaders are relatively mute on other marriage-related conduct permitted by Australian law and addressed in Scripture. For instance, why aren’t there high profile campaigns for the ‘common good’ to criminalise adultery, divorce, de facto relationships and so forth? Isn’t the legal recognition of de facto relationships more harmful to the institution of marriage than gay marriage could ever be, given the vast majority of couples now co-habitate prior to marriage? As C.S. Lewis pointed out in relation to the debates in his era about reforms to the divorce laws, biblical doctrines and public policy operate in different spheres of authority. What binds the Christian community must be clearly distinguished from the State’s power to bind all citizens by law.

Tradition

Tradition matters, but is not in itself a sufficient reason to avoid change. Otherwise society should never have changed marital laws that diverged from tradition, such as permitting inter-racial marriage, giving women an independent legal identity and economic rights in the marriage, raising the eligible legal age for marriage, and many other reforms. The other problem with the argument from tradition is that history shows that marriage has varied enormously across time and culture. One simple example is that the majority of marriages have been polygamous, not 1 man – 1 woman. This is attested to descriptively in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) which, regardless of whether polygamy is endorsed or not, frequently portrays polygamous relationships.

Protecting the institution / preserving the definition

The theoretical proposition that gay people marrying will harm the institution has no evidence to back it up (the issue was debated at length by experts in the trial, Perry v Schwarzenegger). Besides the lack of evidence, it faces its own theoretical problem: why would extending rights to a minority threaten a majority’s pre-existing right? e.g. men didn’t lose their voting rights when women were also allowed the right to vote, nor did allowing Aborigines to vote disenfranchise other Australians.

Not changing the definition of marriage is a slogan, yet also a common form of argument. Marriage, some claim, has a certain definition that would be lost if the law allowed same sex couples to marry. This argument, by itself, is circular. It answers a question about the definition of marriage by postulating that it has a particular definition. The definition argument, if it is more than merely circular, must rely on either the tradition argument (above) or the procreative argument (below).

Freedom of religion

Rumours and claims of religious groups being forced to perform same sex marriages against their will are circulating. This is scaremongering, not least in Australia where every proposed marriage law amendment includes specific protections for religious groups. It also overlooks the ‘freedom of religion’ issue whereby the law currently prevents some religious groups and individuals from doing or being married due to their sexuality.

Protecting children

This argument has two strands. The first involves human rights while the second involves empirical research into the effects of same sex parenting on children.

Frequently it is said that the “research” overwhelmingly shows that children do best when raised by their biological parents. The claim is correct – so far as it goes. At the same time, however, research shows overwhelmingly that the children of same sex parents fare just as well, if not better, than their heterosexual counterparts. So how does the research into children’s welfare support two apparently incompatible claims, on the one hand that those with two biological parents do best, while on the other, that children of same sex parents fare equally well?

The answer lies in the careful construction of Christian claims about the research on children’s welfare. A closer examination shows that the claim fails in two ways: First, the research referred to does not specifically compare the sexuality of parents. But that is the contention in the debate. For instance, the same research shows that children do better in two parent households than single parent ones. But that would support the proposition that two gay parents are better than a single heterosexual parent. This case would, however, fall foul of the qualifier that a “biological” connection is essential for children’s greatest well-being. But since both same sex parents cannot be biologically related to the child, same sex parents are by definition unable to be comparably good parents. By excluding non-biological parents the biology qualifier also sidesteps all the (actually relevant) research on same sex parenting, because it compares parents of different sexualities. Such research cannot compare the biological children of gay parents with their heterosexual counterparts because they don’t exist. So the second failure of the claim is that it relies on circular logic in order to sustain its validity.

Human rights

The claim that children have a right to be parented by their biological parents is a red herring. Gay marriage won’t remove children from their biological parents. Indirectly, it would possibly promote surrogacy or adoption by reinforcing the acceptance of gay parents. However, laws already exist in most jurisdictions allowing gay couples to adopt. Access to reproductive technology and surrogacy arrangements need not breach children’s rights as long as they retain a right to access their biological parents (as jurisdictions typically mandate). The real objection might be that gay marriage sends a message of acceptance of same sex couples as parents and the in-principle idea that children would be raised by same sex couples. Thus the objection over rights can be turned around to ask about the right to form a family, the right to equality before the law and the right of children to be treated with dignity by recognising their parents’ relationship.

The Slippery Slope

This argues that if we legalise same sex couples “because they (genuinely) love one another” then, using the same reasoning, all other forms of relationships can (and will) be legalised, e.g. polygamy, polyamory, incest, etc. This argument is ignorant of the history of marriage. Exactly the same reasoning was used to warn against permitting different classes of people to marry, whether of different social classes, or races, or prisoners, or different religions, or divorcees and so on. So when the Catholic Church began to permit Catholics to marry non-Catholics, did it thereby open the door to polygamous marriages? When Governments repealed anti-miscegenation marriage laws, did they invite incest to be legalised? Such reforms did not invariably tip us into moral oblivion. Throughout the history of marriage the same reasoning which overcame religious, social and other barriers to couples marrying could also have been used (and frequently was) to claim that the reform would destroy marriage. But reforms haven’t led to such disasters (the marriage rate has been stable or rising for decades while the divorce rate has recently been dropping). Besides, a strictly logical response to a slippery slope fear is to argue that we reverse “back up the slope” (which began some 3 centuries ago). To prevent the slippery slope decline we should re-institute the old regime, such as arranged marriages, religious, class, racial and social restrictions. Only then will we be safe from the inevitability of sliding into polyamorous marriages of people, animals or objects.

Marriage is inherently procreative / child-centric

It is argued that marriage is based in “procreative capacity”, and relatedly that the institution should be centred on raising children rather than on a couples’ romantic desires.

The second point about the proper focus of marriage is a straw man argument. It says that either you have a child-focused marriage, or you have a (same sex) couple-centric relationship. The choice assumes that same sex couples only marry for “couple-centric” reasons (because they can’t have children by natural means) while opposite-sex couples marry to bear and raise children. Neither is true in practice, nor in principle. The claim imputes generalised motives for marriage based on the sexuality of the couple. We don’t generally base public policy on speculated motives but in facts and rational argument.

Related to this is a more substantive objection based in Catholic natural law tradition. It proposes that because same sex couples cannot be “naturally” procreative they are ineligible for marriage since procreation is inherent to the meaning of marriage. By defining marriage in this fashion, it is impossible by definition for a same sex couple to be “married”. But aside from the circularity of that logic, there are fatal inconsistencies in its application. The law permits couples to marry even if they are infertile, or incapacitated from producing children (e.g. through illness or injury) or even if physically prevented by incarceration or distance. Couples can also legally marry if they declare no intention to have children. All these exceptions to the general norm have not yet destroyed the institution of marriage nor does the church declare such marriages void.

In response, proponents argue that these exceptions can be distinguished by intention or natural capacity in order to distinguish the category of same sex couples. This requires the marriage law to employ a finely shaded distinction between, for instance, a gay couple who wants to raise a family (by surrogacy or adoption) from a heterosexual couple which openly rejects having children (or are infertile, disabled, or incarcerated). But shouldn’t the church be modelling this crucial distinction by refusing to marry couples who lack procreative intention or capacity? Which marriage liturgy does this? Even if the law could or should make such a distinction, it would need to be balanced against the potentially negative message of a law that is fundamentally inconsistent. Such a law affects all same sex couples who can’t be procreative while ignoring non-procreative opposite sex couples (who can marry and choose to be childless). The effect of such a law is that it treats people differently by virtue of their sexuality alone.

The post Angus McLeay on Christians and marriage legislation appeared first on Luke Arms.

Here’s how it could suck a lot less [for me], with minimal effort:

1. Arrange for the 7.18am train from Newcastle to stop at Metford. This would mean leaving home at 6.50am instead of 6.15am, arriving at work on time instead of 40 minutes early, and never needing to ride back to Metford from Victoria Street.
2. Charge less for peak travel between Cardiff and Metford than the equivalent fuel consumed by my 1.6L 4-cylinder car. In the real world, nobody factors the overall running cost of their car into this calculation. It’s not like we can ditch our cars until public transport actually, you know, works.
3. Remove the ridiculous stipulation that folding bikes must be bagged to ride free. We’re really expected to ride to and from the station with a bulky bag, and wrestle with loading and unloading it twice per day? CityRail travel isn’t slow and inconvenient enough already? Melbourne has no such rule, incidentally. All bikes are always free.

The stupid. It hurts.

The post CityRail sucks appeared first on Luke Arms.