The way the police did this does seem strange and ill advised. Someone I am sure is getting a kicking in the backside over this.

I don’t like what Downer said. But those in power everywhere have weird form of altruistic, self preserving rationalism whereby they pay overdue respect for each other.

Many cultures in south east Asia are far more elitist and class divided than our own. They have much more sense of entitlement than our own mob.

Does the person who was going to be summonsed have a history that might explain what happened ?

The view from here is of a very aggressive ,rather offensive manner being used by the police and courts. The BBC reported that the government hadn’t apologised – but I assumed that this would be a diplomatic affair rather than a state matter. So Iemma’s apology seems weird as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/iemma-terribly-weak-widow/2007/06/01/1180205492878.html

“Aren’t Pubs actually Public Houses? Open to one-and-all provided they had money and behaved themselves?”

The Peel has two dance floors in addition to the traditional Pub offer of the bar, lounge area and pool tables.

At the same time, there’s no adjoining TAB agency on the site where you can place a bet on the horses or dogs

There’s also no Chicken Parmigiana or Frog in a Pond jelly on any bistro menu

So I’m not so convinced you can apply a narrow definition of “pub” in determining the validity of VCAT’s decision regarding The Peel.

My major concern is the painting of heterosexual men as groups of bullies, heterosexual women as hens night groupies and lesbians as militant pool players, while also painting gay men as the “victims” of these other groups – groups that “just happen to be” the rest of the human population other than gay men

People are being classed, then generalised, according to who they are rather than the way they as individuals behave. Suddenly, the rest of the human population is regarded as a problem rather than as a challenge.

Given there was already a previous step taken that granted “men-only” status other gay-marketed venues (including a pub) in the same suburban district, I’m questioning how genuine the need really is to grant an even greater exemption from equal opportunity law, which I now understand also excludes lesbians (something I hadn’t initially understood).

It is now appropriate to wait and see just how discreetly these exemptions are implemented.

…From Justin

“Mr Downer says Australians need to be sensitive to Indonesia’s concept of humiliation.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1938403.htm

Not that “Australians need to be sensitive to” the genocide of 200,000 East Timoreans, “after all we’ve done for them”, or the murder and official cover-up of the Balibo Five, or simply, any other other little “things that splatter” like that.

Twining’s tea anyone?

The Herald Sun’s Voteline asked readers “Should gay bars be allowed to ban heterosexuals?”

From a total of 1617 votes, 57% said “yes” (923 votes) and 43% said “no” (694 votes).

Given such a ratio of 57:43 would appear to be as significant as the similar 60:40 ratio we currently get between Labor and Liberal in the opinion polls, it may seem that there’s a significant majority that approve of the Peel Hotel’s new policy.

However, insights expressed by people such as Graham Bell in this thread and listeners to nighttime talkback radio programs hosted last night by Kym Ferguson (on Regional Radioworks Network) and Bryan Carlton (on Triple M) were still worth taking note of to determine the in-depth, underlying reasons and motivations of the general public regarding this issue.

I get the impression that there’s a bit of a barrier to the general public gaining a full understanding of this issue and the quantitative research conducted by the Herald Sun is not altogether indicative of concerns raised in the qualitative feedback.

I assume this is because most people in the population are not directly affected by the issue anyway. Still, I appreciate the coverage the media gave to this landmark decision.

For those who wish to form a more in-depth, informed opinion on this matter, here’s a list of active resources:

The ABC’s overview coverage:

link

The decision in detail
link

Rodney Croome’s gay advocate position on the issue:

link

Debate at the gay community level:

link

…From Justin

I am very much focusing on the rhetoric being used – Every term used to describe the discrimination and injustice alleged in the Peel Hotel case.

The comparison with the Viet-Nam War veterans is a fair call and helps me to put some of the Public Relations theory I am learning into context.

…From Justin

However, when I heard an extended news item on that issue I was disgusted. Every term used to describe the discrimination and injustice against these gays and lesbians could have been equally applied to the majority of Viet-Nam War veterans – yet none of the useless bureaucratic ornaments that pretend to be anti-discrimination bodies has ever lifted a finger. The hypocrisy of it stinks to high heaven.

I don’t begrudge gays and lesbians anything – but it would be a nice change if these bureaucrats earned their keep by being less selective in what discrmination they choose to deal with and waht discrimination they choose to ignore!

The newspaper reports today that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has granted “an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act” which effectively prohibits entry to “non-homosexuals”.

Concerned about heterosexual patrons entering the pub “in large groups”, VCAT Deputy Cate McKenzie has expressed concern that “This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create” because the straight groups may outnumber the gay men, instead creating the atmosphere which results in “sexually based insults and violence towards gay male patrons”.

During the application for the exemption, the intended changes were advertised within The Peel Hotel itself and attracted no public objections, yet now that it’s a public enough issue to even attract the attention of Channel Seven’s Sunrise this morning, it will be interesting to get the public reaction from Herald Sun readers.

One of my concerns reflects a question raised by Sunrise newsreader Natalie Barr, which was along the lines of “how can you tell if someone is heterosexual”?

Another of my concerns is this statement from VCAT’s Cate McKenzie, stating the reason for the Equal Opportunity exemption:

“Sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons.”

Does this mean the lesbian groups will now behave themselves towards these “gay male victims”, now you have the “violent heterosexuals” kept outside the pub?

VCAT’s Cate McKenzie reveals that:

“(This exemption) seeks to give gay men a space in which they may, without inhibition, meet, socialise and express physical attraction in a non-threatening atmosphere.”

What VCAT’s decision does not reveal is that this is ultimately a proprietary space that’s “marketed to gay men”.

So while today’s Herald Sun report reveals that our gay male victims have recently been made to feel like “zoo animals” in a way that devalues and dehumanises them, The Peel Hotel is next month involved in the marketing of an event called “Southern HiBearnation – the largest bear event in the Southern Hemisphere” – an event that turns men into bears “without any violence” from heterosexuals.

As a current student of Public Relations, I find the “rhetoric” that’s been used by The Peel Hotel to be worthy of further public scrutiny, especially given the inclusion of lesbians in identifying the problem and only the exclusion of heterosexuals in identifying a solution.

…From Justin

it was revealed yesterday that the company had matched vacancies with jobseekers who were in some cases offered jobs under AWAs, which the Opposition Leader would ban if he is elected prime minister.

Thanks for that, Frank. Wow! They don’t give up, do they? The assumption seems to be that if the Rudd-Rein motives were all that pure, Workdirections simply would have put a ban on taking vacancies from employers wanting to apply Workchoices.

Agree with steve. Even when they can draw a scratch, they’re not doing the slightest good for the Government’s Workchoices policy.

LABOR leader Kevin Rudd faces a new assault over workplace flexibility in the wake of revelations his wife’s company employs all her 800 staff under individual contracts and profited from finding jobs for workers to be employed under AWAs.
Dennis Shanahan blog | Janet Albrechtsen blog
After agreeing to sell the domestic arm of her multi-million-dollar business to avoid claims of conflict of interest, Therese Rein revealed yesterday that her company did not use awards to pay her staff, preferring the flexibility of common-law agreements.

Although Mr Rudd has stressed that his wife’s company never employed staff under Australian Workplace Agreements, it was revealed yesterday that the company had matched vacancies with jobseekers who were in some cases offered jobs under AWAs, which the Opposition Leader would ban if he is elected prime minister.

Ms Rein confirmed an overseas arm of her company was seeking to recruit German engineers to fill vacant mining jobs in Australia using the controversial 457 visas that Labor has targeted as exploitative in some instances.

Labor has promoted the benefits of common-law agreements as a fairer alternative to AWAs, but has joined with unions in stressing the benefits of collective bargaining and the award system to boost productivity.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21804428-601,00.html

Politically, however, it is difficult to make the point of principle(s) without using some real life examples of the consequences of those principles.

I agree wpd. My suggestion (and to be honest, they have mainly done this) would be to name and not shame.

ie ‘and here’s yet another business – doing whats now lawful under John Howard’s workchoices.’

Its dead, but will probably still flap on in his mind.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1934458.htm

…. but it was under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments that the Commonwealth Employment Service – long-overdue for reform and modernization – morphed into our present gold-plated Employment Prevention Program. It was under the same three prime ministers that Training turned from something that improved productivity, profitability and customer satisfaction into Rort Central [and b.t.w., don't hold your breath waiting for a Royal Commission into the families of senior bureaucrats and politicians being "trained" under the National Employment & Training Scheme during the Whitlam and Fraser years]

That it might be appropriate for the opposition , in developing new policy, to redirect a lot more of the funds towards the people that the system was set up to help.

Spot on, Joe2. Sadly, it seems a bit like education and schools. Even a token effort is going to attract unwelcome partisanship. I’d imagine it’ll quietly be ignored on the Beazley principle of not opening up too many fronts. Let’s hope that if elected they have enough courage to do something about it.

‘How would the government exploit this situation? Harry knows.

Harry blogs here at 1.49pm and says “Hypocrisyâ€? and at 6pm it’s on the news: the government’s line is: “Hypocrisyâ€?.’

I am driving their agenda Ken?

I have to make sure that the surge of power I feel after reading this utter nonsense is not just my consequent need to visit the bathroom.

Steve you have got it.
Sadly, this “dysfunctional beast” is likely to continue, because labor may well continue this insanity. Because it will possibly hurt those who have done nicely, and destroy established roosts.