Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

ELDER ABUSE
Elder abuse has been well documented in recent years, covering areas such as abuse by institutions and abuse by those responsible for management of care for the elderly, frail, sick, disabled.
Elder abuse of the gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities has also started to be documented in recent years, and horror reports by researchers such as Dr Jo Harrison, researcher of gay and lesbian gerontology, have uncovered instances of abuse to which those in local government and other governmental levels have turned blind eyes in many instances, or in fact have been guilty of inflicting themselves.
Now, in 2009, the Federal Government is about to inflict a new method of elder abuse on the GLTH communities, particularly those least able to defend themselves against this new form of discrimination.
This new abuse inflicts outing, public declarations, income reduction and other disadvantages on these groups because the Government refuses to provide a grandfather clause in the legislation which provides improvements in conditions for same-sex partnerships.
In effect, this elder abuse means inflicting hardship on people who have lived their lives with the hardships imposed by the homophobic world in which they have lived, a world which has denied them the same human rights which heterosexual members of the community have taken for granted as their right in our society.
Because so many have remained living as homosexuals in secret, the psychological and physical impacts as well as the other impacts of outing them are too numerous to contemplate. These are people who have had to try to finance their plans for old age in ways which would be foreign to heterosexuals, and who in many instances will now have their support structures torn away from them because of the new legislation.
This is elder abuse writ large and for which the government will be held responsible for the awful situations inflicted on those least able to protect themselves, all this at a time of financial crisis in local and global economies which will affect us all.
All these hardships will be avoided by the inclusion of a grandfather clause to assist some of the most disadvantaged of our elderly GLTH population -“ those already in their 70s, 80s and older.
You wouldn’t do this to your own families, would you?
-” Mannie
ROLE MODELS
Eric (SSO 964) has conflated being a parent with being a role model. I agree that children should have both female and male role models during their formative years.
The role models, however, do not need to be the parents. While it is important for parents to act as good role models, they are not the only role models available to children.  Other potential role models include siblings, grandparents, extended family, family friends, school teachers and prominent community members. In fact a child can have more than one role model.
I believe it is important for a child not only to be brought up with loving parents (or parent), but also in an environment where they can interact safely with lots of people of all ages.  There is a proverb, It takes a village to raise a child.
-” Larry
NSW OFF TRACK
In the NSW State Transit Authority’s Bus Operations (state) Award 2007, the provisions for Personal/Carer’s Leave Entitlement state:
59.3 (i) A de facto spouse in relation to a person means person of the opposite sex to the first mentioned person who lives with the first mentioned person as a husband or wife…
Kevin’s 58’08 reforms to Commonwealth legislation do not seem to have been translated into state awards. When is Nathan going to get with the program?
59 (ii) Child … of the employee.  Although the award does not specifically exclude rainbow children of either the donor or the non-recognised spouse I have been told the child must live with the parent claiming the leave.
Perhaps GLRL could address state legislation so as to bring it into line with Commonwealth equity to GLBTQI people?
-” John
GOOD IDEA
Mr Woodhouse’s concept to use vacant spaces for art is a brilliant idea that is now being considered by Waverley Council (SSO 965). It would energise areas including Oxford St, Redfern and Kings Cross, while simultaneously increasing passing retail pedestrian traffic for other nearby shops. It would also provide evidence to potential lessees that these shops are rentable, while giving artists a chance to work and display their art. Sydney Council is mad not to fully investigate this idea.
-” Brian S
GETTING ARTY
Artists should be given access to derelict shops along Oxford St (SSO 965). The city council’s inaction has led to economic and social decay. Council can, through this proposal, provide some sustainable development for the street. It’s good for business and the neighbourhood.
-” Brian N
NOT SURPRISING
Let’s be honest here -” Cardinal George Pell’s comment mirroring that of Pope Sidious saying that condom usage does not help to prevent HIV/AIDS, and worse, helps it along its merry way is hardly a surprising development.
Pell and Ratzinger could be long-term boyfriends if they didn’t already have an almighty partner. As power relationships go, it’s obvious who wears the pants (or frock, as it were) in this relationship, and Georgy Porgy is only too keen to please. Despite the fact it makes no scientific or logical sense. Since when has that ever stopped the Vatican? As David Marr rightly points out, Australia waged the world’s most effective war on AIDS by ignoring the Catholic Church. Snap.
What I find somewhat more disturbing is that after His Eminence, Darth Benedict, announced this a few months back, European politicians loudly condemned his comments as ill-thought out and not very helpful. Pell does the same, and what do we get? Nothing from Roxon, nothing from Della Bosca – we get referred to current ALP state and federal health policy. Perhaps they’re Catholics? Who knows?
I worry that if our politicians skirt around such a potentially damaging and life-threatening issue, it cannot bode well for any future responses to HIV/AIDS in NSW or Australia. I hope I’m wrong.
-” James
HELP AT HANd
I read with dismay the public stand on condom usage by the Catholic church in relation to HIV/AIDs. Again it seems that despite the hard work of so many people worldwide to try and stop this epidemic from spreading, the Catholic Church is ignoring the reality of this issue.
I do not see how, when there is so much conclusive medical and social evidence that condom use prevents new HIV infections, that the Catholic Church can continue this stance. Christians follow the risen Christ.
And if we follow Christ then we must be ready to go against social and religious conventions to help others in the reality of their existence. I pray that the Catholic Church and its leaders will realise that this means that we all must be pragmatic enough to help others, rather than hang on to, in the name of Christ, doctrine and dogma that causes suffering, shame and death.
-” Rev Gavin Ward, Pastor, MCC Sydney
NO GAINS SEEN
I can’t see gaining for the homosexual community in Mr Margan and his obscure group CAAH (Community Action Against Homophobia) copying an apology from Radio 2UE I delivered some time ago (SSO 965).
What is extraordinary about this apology is that it is addressed to Mr Margan himself.
This could hardly be classed as a public interest delivery of a message to homosexual people.
Mr Margan will find it very difficult to copy my forthcoming litigation against Mr Kennett.
It is sad for me to see people in our community who are using litigation against people in powerful positions like Mr Laws for the wrong purposes.
-” Gary Burns
TOLERANCE
Gay people should just stay out of the CBD pubs and clubs. They’re not welcome. They don’t belong there and they never will.
Ridiculous and discriminatory? Yes!
As a minority, and like most other minorities, it is expected that the gay community will experience some prejudice. And this is not OK.
Why is it we can’t realise and accept that young, drunk, straight males act the way they do on Oxford St everywhere else as well?
I know they’re diluting the Oxford St culture, and trust me, they gross me out too. But this intolerance and attitude of separatism is only further alienating us. As a community, we need to practice the tolerance and acceptance that we preach. If a straight guy said he’d never want to have a queer friend, I’m sure we’d find that ignorant and reprehensible.
Oil is lighter than water. If we have to mix, we’ll rise above it.
-” Chloe

You May Also Like

9 responses to “Letters to the Editor”

  1. I forgot to say, if you know of an older gay person who might want to talk to me, please feel free to pass on my contact details to them. thanks :)

  2. Hi to all,

    My name’s Alex, I’m a UTS journalism student and I was hoping to get in touch with any older gay person who is likely to be affected by the Centrelink changes. If you’re happy to have a chat please call me on 0438 701 190 or email me at alextaylor33@gmail.

    Thanks!

  3. Yes, Brendan, you are crystal clear.

    I don’t want to be ”equal”, and I don’t want to be grandfathered.

    I know I’m superior.

  4. George, let me be crystal clear. What I consider blatant hyperbole is the claim by some that THE CENTRELINK CHANGES are “elder abuse”. I did not say that elder gays have had it easy. Kindly refrain from distorting my views.

    Meanwhile, Shayne, how is a policy of over 20 years ago in a different situation automatically relevant, justifiable and applicable to a quite different situation today?

  5. Brendan thinks that elder abuse is ”blatant hyperbole”.

    In my psychiatric nursing days I saw geriatric patients left sitting in their own shit and urine, even left unfed, until someone more junior or less assertive eventually came along.

    I have seen *blind* geriatrics punched in the guts by staff, kicked in the ribs, and covered in bruises. I saw a blind man once dragged along a ward verandah and inverted and dumped in a tea-chest full of dirty laundry.

    I saw a man who couldn’t walk kicked in the ribs and guts, and covered in bruises.

    I saw a 96-year-old woman hit across the head.

    I’ve seen a geriatric ordered to hang his penis out and who was then bombarded with homophobic comments by staff.

    One ”nurse” who did all of the above ended up becoming a superintendent of nursing.

    There is an epidemic of Alzheimer’s coming, and resources–social and economic–are finite. We should all be very afraid. Mannie, as someone in his eighties, has every reason to be concerned about abuse of the elderly.

  6. Putting aside the blatant hyperbole of -œanyone who cares about community” for a minute, Brendan, the change to the pensionable age for women from 60 to 65 was phased in over 20 years, (to give just one example.) Can you see any reason why we should not be entitled to the same consideration?

  7. Brendan,
    Your comment is a breath of fresh air.
    Centrelink should never become a compensation agency for the past injustices against homosexuality Australians.
    We must not have one part of the community claiming a pension being treated differently to another.

  8. Putting aside the blatant hyperbole of “elder abuse”, anyone who cares about community would do well to realistically consider the needs of the whole disadvantaged community. In that context, a piecemeal grandfather clause for current same-sex welfare recipients would be a messy and inadequate policy.

    Segregating some welfare gays from recent reforms, on the basis of sweeping generalisations and arbitrary cut-offs without any assessment of real need and individual circumstances, will simply create unfairness elsewhere. For example, new welfare gays would get less than “grandfathered” welfare gays because of a condescending and misguided assumption that new applicants have “had it good” so far or will “have it good” in years ahead. Meanwhile, heterosexual couples in equivalent circumstances of disadvantage (eg. HIV+ cohabiting welfare heteros) would continue to be treated harsher by the welfare system than their gay counterparts (as they have been for years).

    Centrelink payments are not a compensation scheme for past discrimination but a system for mitigating individual economic disadvantage according to current need. We do need it to be a more empathetic, more generous welfare system: but one that puts genuine disadvantage front and centre regardless of sexual orientation. And that would be advantageous to all welfare recipients, including cohabiting gays.