Letters – Melbourne (118)

PEEL EXEMPTIONS
Before the initial exemption, as a bisexual female, I was always allowed entry with my lesbian friends to the Peel.
Not once did we cause trouble. Post-exemption we were never permitted entry just because we were female.
So it wasn’t a case of thinking we would be knocked back and therefore stayed away (according to Tom). We did try and we were knocked back.
My friends and I would be considered dykes, but we are not aggressive or threatening in nature.
I’m all for making the Peel a safe place for gay men, but assuming all dykes = trouble is as detrimental as assuming all gay males = AIDS.
— BH

HEALTH ALLIANCE #1
The Alliance has operated since 2007, with a paid staff member since 2009. What do members and the broader community have to show for it? Next to nothing.
The Alliance has not delivered anything that its members would not have done. Indeed some of its releases seem to show a complete lack of reason to fund it.
Its statements often sound whingy, like a victim, and frankly I’d be ashamed to have it represent me.
As for its statement that it was pivotal in getting us funding for the recent T-shirt campaign, I don’t recall the Alliance saying or doing much to push for seniors.
Hopefully the new board will change this but until it does I think Butler/ Roxon/ Gillard would be very wise to stay away. Fund projects, but we don’t need an incompetent peak body. Look what ATSIC did for their constituents if you think we do.
— Brian

HEALTH ALLIANCE #2
Unless we have a united front we’ll get nowhere.
With minimal funding the Alliance has worked behind the scenes on federal women’s and men’s health issues, applied funding pressure over HIV and helped with the roll-out of the Wear It with Pride campaign. Not bad for an organisation that “has not delivered anything”.
— Jack

HEALTH ALLIANCE #3
I have seen first-hand all the excellent submissions, promotion, and advocacy that the LGBTI Health Alliance has achieved and think it’s shameful that the government has not funded this important organisation.
It is crucial that a national peak body is funded — especially so that LGBTI Australians from all over the country can have a voice.
In Perth we are tragically under-funded and find it extremely difficult to get our voices heard, and the LGBTI Health Alliance does a fantastic job in representing our community in a way that has made politicians, policy makers, and organisations take notice.
Keep up the great work — which will only be possible with government funding.
— Vanessa

HEALTH ALLIANCE #4
I think a national peak body is crucial and should be funded accordingly.
Existing peak bodies in the LGBTI sector have a focus on HIV and sexual health. The National LGBTI Health Alliance has a much broader scope in terms of LGBTI health which has been a real gap to-date.
Other marginalised community groups have government-funded peak bodies. Why should the LGBTI community be excluded from this national representation?
— James

CARDINAL PELL
If people wanting same-sex marriage were demanding that Catholic clergy conduct the wedding on Catholic Church property then [Cardinal George] Pell and his cohorts would have a case.
However, as gay men and lesbians (for the most part) don’t want to impose on the Catholic Church, Pell should mind his business.
At any rate, why listen to an organisation that bangs on about how great marriage is but refuses to allow its priests to get married?
— David