engayment
5th February 2010, 11:52 AM
Did you know,
that when Kevin Rudd was running to be elected as Prime Minister he promised that he would quash all human rights violations that Gay people (and when I say gay, I mean GLBT the whole bunch) were currently subjected to in this country.
It was an election promise.
It has gone unfulfilled and largely unnoticed.
So far, not much has changed, but some stuff has:
Centrelink recognises homosexual partnerships so that benefits that are paid to gay pensioners amount to less in total, in comparison to two men living in the same dwelling receiving individual payments separately. So this saves the Government lots of money. Which is good for them, and good for us, because we are being treated equally, even if we have to pay for it. Equality is equality.
The Australian Taxation Office recognises homosexual partnerships. This can help financially if one person in a Homosexual parntership earns over the MLS threshold and would normally have to pay the Medicare Levy Surcharge, but due to the fact the partnerships aggregate income is less than $140K, the MLS would be waived. This is good, because it saves you some money, but again, equality is equality, for better or for worse.
So that's great, thanks for the favour KRUDD.
But what about the Australian Human Rights Commission? What of the Australian Human Rights ACT, which basically stipulates that Gay people (et all) are as good as criminals?
As the law stands now, I am entitled to protection from discrimination, harassment, and bullying because of my:
Sex (including pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities and sexual harassment)
Disability, including temporary and permanent disabilities; physical, intellectual, sensory, psychiatric disabilities, diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability
Race, including colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status and racial hatred
Age, covering young people and older people
BUT
If I am homosexual however, I am only entitled to protection provided it is specifically to do with employment matters.
If I am a criminal, or have been convicted of crimes, I am only entitled to protection provided it is specifically to do with employment matters.
You can see this yourself at http://bit.ly/9vyzKs
Now now, before you get your knickers in a knot. I know that there may be State based legislatures that can assist in the case that I've been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation (sexual preference, don't you hate that they make you say it's a preference?), but KRUDD is not the Prime Minister of NSW, or QLD. He's the Prime Minister of Australia.
Kevin Rudd made a Federal Election Promise, and it has remained broken, since he became Prime Minister.
Don't you care, that we have no protection (save for employment matters) from the one place that is federally and legally obligated to protect all human beings in Australia?
Ironically, being denied the ability to Marry your partner because of where you are positioned in a social demographic, is a denial of personal liberty and an intentional thwarting of the potential for one’s own individual happiness.
In other words, if the Australian Human Rights ACT was inclusive enough to protect Gay people along with all the rest, we could argue that the Federal Government is breaching our human rights by not allowing us to marry each other. Interesting huh?
Imagine if it was illegal for a White Australian to marry an Indigenous Australian? To avoid the riots, do you know who's job it would be to investigate and ultimately fix it? The Australian Human Rights Commission or should I say, The Australian Human Rights Omission
If you give a shit, write to someone about it. I started a twitter @engayment
Don't be a hater, I don't have the time. Thanks for reading.
that when Kevin Rudd was running to be elected as Prime Minister he promised that he would quash all human rights violations that Gay people (and when I say gay, I mean GLBT the whole bunch) were currently subjected to in this country.
It was an election promise.
It has gone unfulfilled and largely unnoticed.
So far, not much has changed, but some stuff has:
Centrelink recognises homosexual partnerships so that benefits that are paid to gay pensioners amount to less in total, in comparison to two men living in the same dwelling receiving individual payments separately. So this saves the Government lots of money. Which is good for them, and good for us, because we are being treated equally, even if we have to pay for it. Equality is equality.
The Australian Taxation Office recognises homosexual partnerships. This can help financially if one person in a Homosexual parntership earns over the MLS threshold and would normally have to pay the Medicare Levy Surcharge, but due to the fact the partnerships aggregate income is less than $140K, the MLS would be waived. This is good, because it saves you some money, but again, equality is equality, for better or for worse.
So that's great, thanks for the favour KRUDD.
But what about the Australian Human Rights Commission? What of the Australian Human Rights ACT, which basically stipulates that Gay people (et all) are as good as criminals?
As the law stands now, I am entitled to protection from discrimination, harassment, and bullying because of my:
Sex (including pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities and sexual harassment)
Disability, including temporary and permanent disabilities; physical, intellectual, sensory, psychiatric disabilities, diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability
Race, including colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status and racial hatred
Age, covering young people and older people
BUT
If I am homosexual however, I am only entitled to protection provided it is specifically to do with employment matters.
If I am a criminal, or have been convicted of crimes, I am only entitled to protection provided it is specifically to do with employment matters.
You can see this yourself at http://bit.ly/9vyzKs
Now now, before you get your knickers in a knot. I know that there may be State based legislatures that can assist in the case that I've been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation (sexual preference, don't you hate that they make you say it's a preference?), but KRUDD is not the Prime Minister of NSW, or QLD. He's the Prime Minister of Australia.
Kevin Rudd made a Federal Election Promise, and it has remained broken, since he became Prime Minister.
Don't you care, that we have no protection (save for employment matters) from the one place that is federally and legally obligated to protect all human beings in Australia?
Ironically, being denied the ability to Marry your partner because of where you are positioned in a social demographic, is a denial of personal liberty and an intentional thwarting of the potential for one’s own individual happiness.
In other words, if the Australian Human Rights ACT was inclusive enough to protect Gay people along with all the rest, we could argue that the Federal Government is breaching our human rights by not allowing us to marry each other. Interesting huh?
Imagine if it was illegal for a White Australian to marry an Indigenous Australian? To avoid the riots, do you know who's job it would be to investigate and ultimately fix it? The Australian Human Rights Commission or should I say, The Australian Human Rights Omission
If you give a shit, write to someone about it. I started a twitter @engayment
Don't be a hater, I don't have the time. Thanks for reading.