One of the first things Barack Obama did after taking office was repeal the Global gag rule, which, as described here, “prohibits US family planning assistance to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provide abortion-related information or services, even if these services are legal in their own countries and are funded with their own money. The rule prevents NGOs from even participating in public debates or speaking out on issues concerning abortion.”. Courtesy of Brian Harradine, Australia has had a similar policy for some time, as noted by Helen. Thankfully, that policy is about to change:
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith has been reviewing the rules and has decided to overturn the ban. Mr Smith says the change will mean women in developing countries will have the same options as those in Australia, if local laws allow terminations. But he says Australian aid funding will still focus on avoiding abortions through family planning.
After Mr Smith made the announcement in a Labor Party meeting this morning Prime Minister Kevin Rudd thanked him for the way the debate had been handled and said a clear majority of Caucus supported the change. But Mr Rudd said he was personally not in support of the change.
As an indication of why this change is important, this post explains how the change in the American rule will help the fight against AIDS in Africa. Why? Because it means that general health clinics, and family planning clinics, can be run as an integrated whole. I hope that there will be similar positive effects because of the Australian change, perhaps in Papua New Guinea where AIDS is increasing in prevalence.
Woo hoo! For once, something that I write angry letters about is actually changed! This was an evil, callous policy. There’s nothing wrong with focusing on family planning to avoid abortion wherever possible – that’s a responsible policy. Abortions are far riskier than not getting pregnant in the first place, but are, sometimes, necessary.
(PS – Dear Kevin Rudd, may you be reincarnated as a 12-year-old Ethiopian girl with a fistula induced by traumatic forced birth. Enjoy.)
About time!
Not that I’m a-bitching’ but why now? Why not last year?
And what mileage can Rudd expect from saying that he was against it but was streamrolled from Cabinet colleagues?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/10/2512070.htm
I would like Kevin to provide reasons beyond pandering to domestic religious minorities as to why he is against the change. Come on Bonhoffer!
Sadly wilful, I think all he’d have beyond that is personal religious conviction.
Wilful wrote:
Who cares – it’s good politics to do it this way as it leaves the hornets nest of religious stupidity undisturbed. Am I being too cynical to suggest that was the reason, rather than any personal reason?
I do wonder sometimes what KRudd’s private views on social issues really are. He talks the fundie talk sometimes, but when push comes to shove he mostly seems to buckle to the secular consensus.
Very, very, very pleased. And as lilacsigil says, I too wrote letters and sent emails and it’s nice to see that presumably someone, somewhere has listened and acted.
Thumbs up from me!!
You maybe right David. At least Rudd didn’t stand in the way, which he could have. But, it’s excellent news.
Of course this change is way overdue, and thanks for driving it across the line before we became an international laughing stock, Mr Smith.
So, when is Kevin Rudd going to convert to Catholicism? Tony Blair converted when he realised he was floating in a leaky boat without a moral compass. Is this Kevin’s problem?
Frankly, I am long sick of Kevin and his mediocre managerialism. Keating would have taken advantage of the GFC to attack AGW, and set about rebuilding industry and business through renewables. Kevin seems to think just sitting in the middle is the safest place to be.
If Kevin converts, then he is electorally dead meat. Bring it on, and put the Goddess in charge. Or Julia would do.
Robert Merkel wrote:
Isn’t that modern Christianity all over though? It’s all about public posturing and private, unspoken misgivings and hypocrisy.
Not that Dawkins style evangelical atheism is any better (and I think you could argue Dawkins is the embodiment of the logical outcome of Anglicanism).
As long as he keeps the big decisions coming down on the side of secular rationalism, his public outpourings of moral disquiet serve a nice purpose whether he means them to or not. Next stop: getting the bloody Catholic church to accept condoms as an effective method of disease control.
With one mighty bound I am back, ripping the gags off my various orifices. Call that a coup you Eich with crippled reproductive organs? I was going Galt on purpose you frigid gas breathing punch and judy show.
And now I am moistly delighted to see the peak sperm-generating primates on Tellus now understand the importance of muzzling dissenting views about generative issues.
No, wait a parsec, I’m dizzy from too much *untranslatable*. Am I to understand lead procreaters on Tellus are now allowing the breeding stock to have some say in manipulating propaganda control over information about womb machines?
Good. Ha. Ha. And Ha. Uncontrolled spawning unmonitored by your Pope Limbaugh, Happy OctoSandler and Ronald MacIncubator means more shock work volunteers when the Glorious Day of Liberation comes.
Boskone abides.
lilacsigil @ 1, I hope you’re reincarnated as someone with both an ounch of civility and a little bit of pragmatic commonsense. Rudd almost certainlty knew he’d be letting this happen whatever his personal views are (and I can’t find any source online saying he has ever spoken against this reform, despite what people here are assuming).
Grace Pettigrew @ 9: If you saw PK on his recent Lateline appearance you’d have noticed he said nought about fighting AGW or converting us to a green industry economy. I like the guy as much as the next wanker, but please, there’s no evidence he’d be going balls to the wall on these issues if he were in office today. Hell, PM Keating circa 2009 might still have Richo as environment minister (which, come to think of it, would probably be the same as having Wong and Garett in the current divided portfolio).
I was waiting for one of the usual suspects to come along and squeal “SDA! SDA!” (with the obligatory sideswipe at the AWU, despite the fact that that other Labor Right faction doesn’t actually give a damn about cultural issues) but you’ve done us all a favour by getting straight to the heart of the matter with your anti-Catholic bigotry. Seriously, the Party or the electorate should reject the man if he returns to the Catholic Church?! (BTW, he was born an RC, Grace. Your anti-Papist radar mustn’t be very well tuned.)
Why won’t some people realise the fifties and the sixties are over, that the old sectional hatreds have been rejected by modern Australia! Do you really want to be the Hansonites of the Left forever? (And I say this as a pro-choice, socially liberal agnostic.)
Kevin Rudd as — as far as I’m aware, and he did used to be my local member — a fairly socially conservative Protestant. I’m not sure of what variety. They often line up with the Catholics on social issues like abortion. Where he differs (both from more extreme Protestants and the official Catholic Church) is his acceptance that — by and large — his personal views remain his personal views. Yes, seeing him get stuck into Bill Henson wasn’t the most edifying thing, but he was asked for his honest opinion, which he gave.
Where there does seem to be quite a serious overspill of social conservatism into politics is in the plan for internet censorship; that said, however, the religious element is bolstered by an almost obsessive focus on families (something that seems characteristic of both sides of politics, btw, not just Kevin Rudd). It’s difficult to imagine any polly of whatever ‘major’ stripe trying to argue for something like that on religious grounds alone.
Rudd: Born Rock Chopper, converted to CofE for the missus.
Apparently he’s dead in the water if he goes back, ‘coz enlightened people won’t have a PM taking orders from the Vatican or the Australian Family Assciation or something…
I share Robert Merkels suspicion. Rudd talks the fundie talk, but always sems to cave on the issues, and I have a suspicion he really doesn’t fight very hard. Is he just trying to have a bet both ways? It doesn’t seem very KRuddy to identify yourself with a position that has already lost when you didn’t need to even mention it.
Nickws@12, like most Australians who can read, I do know Rudd was born a RC (like Keating), thanks, and if you want to label me an “anti-catholic bigot” with a faulty “anti-Papist radar” then feel free. I am as tolerant as the next LPer. But, if you are, as you say, a “pro-choice socially liberal agnostic”, then I must say you seem a bit young and confused. That’s OK, agnostics usually are.
I have been watching Rudd’s carefully calculated religiousity since he was in opposition and part of that coven of parliamentary christians, along with Beazley..and then there is that bunch of very serious RC’s on the right, the most prominent being Kevin Andrews (former Mr Workchoices and then Mr Bugger off Refugees), the very soul of christian charity and compassion. I don’t care what these blokes get up to in private, but I object strongly when they make laws inflicting their religious bigotry on the women of this country, and others.
I said out loud then, and I say it again, Parliament should get their rosaries off our ovaries. Secular democracy is the constitutional rule in this country, and the Harradines and the Rudds and those cardigan men now in charge of the SDA (a women’s union if ever there was one) should just back off.
Any more of this overt religious nuttery and Rudd will start losing public support, count on it. Not because people don’t want a Catholic in charge but because his religious motivations are so transparently political. Rudd’s “shitstorm” remark the other night was rightly called out as a staged event almost immediately. There will be more of this.
A small addendum for the leagle eagles. When I mentioned “making laws”, I was including regulations.
It is even more dismaying, in a sense, that it took over a year for the minister to revoke this dreadful “global gag” regulation, given that it can be done with the stroke of a pen and does not need to be argued through parliament.
It suggests that the creepy RC cardigan men are very hard at work on the backbench of our newly minted “progressive” government. Smith’s seriously pained expression when he mentioned the “extensive consultation” he undertook (presumably with the blokes from the SDA) is also indicative.
Re the point about the desirability of African health clinics being able to run as an “integrated whole”, and so help fight HIV. Why wouldn’t increased availability of abortion have the effect of encouraging less condom use? The men can tell their wife/lover that they don’t have to use a condom, as the kindly NGO will take care of any unwanted pregnancy anyway.
But Mr Rudd said he was personally not in support of the change.
The reactionary little shit. I thought we’d finally gotten rid of Howardism.
steve from brisbane, #18
Hopefully the kindly NGOs will encourage men, as well as women, to take responsibility for their fertility – after all, it takes two to tango…
It is interesting to note that a country which many would perceive to be a ‘traditional’ society has taken a lead on addressing the problem of its overpopulation.
Iran’s population growth dropped from 3.2 percent in 1986 to just 1.2 percent in 2001. During the 1980s, it was recognised that Iran’s rapid population growth was creating serious economic problems (e.g. pressure on health and education services, and unattainably high demand for employment) and the government revived its family planning program to address these problems.
In an article contrasting family planning policies in Egypt and Iran, Julie Fogarty reports that in Iran, “religious leaders endorsed the program, directing all religious authorities to support family planning because it was initiated by the Islamic government. Religious leaders now describe smaller families as a social responsibility.” (Please take note Roman Catholic Church…)
A key feature of Iran’s family planning program is the involvement of men.
In an article on the Earth Policy Institute website, Janet Larsen notes: “Iran is the only country in the world that requires both men and women to take a class on modern contraception before receiving a marriage license. And it is the only country in the region with a government-sanctioned condom factory. In the past four years, some 220,000 Iranian men have had a vasectomy. While vasectomies still account for only 3 percent of contraception, compared with female sterilization at 28 percent, men nonetheless are assuming more responsibility for family planning.”
The developing world is facing dire social and environmental problems due to overpopulation. Both women and men have to take responsibility for their fertility to maintain sustainable populations.
@Nickws – try checking out http://www.notyetrain.org/ before you call me out on my “civility”.
‘Rudd’s “shitstorm” remark the other night was rightly called out as a staged event almost immediately’
Your kidding of course. With a party and personal popularity rating in the stratosphere non stop for a few years Rudd suddenly decideds that he should say shit on tv because….he wants to get a 80% PPM rating?
Aren’t we just getting a little nuerotic reading ulterior motives into any little thing asomeone does.
Personally I believe Rudd studied Chinese at Uni when he was young just so he could one day wedge Howard at an APEC meeting. And does he really speak Chinese? I suspect he just memorises all the sounds five minutes before hand. Im calling him out on it.
I think Rudd’s take on Christianity is right. He is Christian (which can mean many things from fundamentalism to Spong and beyond), he lets that inform his behaviour and personal position on social issues.
No, I am not kidding, Thomas Paine, and there is nothing “neurotic” in discussing the same issue here that preoccupied the rest of the country for a couple of days earlier this week. Don’t be so precious.
While I don’t believe that he and his minders decided precisely on the word “shitstorm”, I think that Rudd is well aware that the occasional “slip” into vulgarity does him no harm in the popularity stakes. His apparent drunken night at strip joint saw his popularity go stratospheric. Remember? The bogans loved it.
Rudd was appearing last weekend on commercial telly in a relaxed environment, with nasty political stormclouds gathering on the horizon for this week’s debates on IR and CPRS. What better time to drop a plonker into the pond to distract attention, and have everyone discussing his apparent verbal slip-up for the next couple of days.
The opportunity arose and he took it. Never underestimate Mr Rudd’s political cunning. While he might have a tin ear, his sense of timing (and lack of shame) is as acute as Howard’s.
Trouble is, for Rudd, it looks like some of the smarter media hacks are onto him, hence the lack of ripple effect beyond a couple of days.
Grace Pettigrew @ 16: I, like most normal human beings not suffering from mange, can read, and can understand what you meant when you wrote,
The context there is specific hatred of the Catholics, not opposition to the broader Religious Right–so no matter how much you wish to imply that you’re some groovy Diana Goddess-worshipping pagan, you are certainly not a polite Richard Dawkins-style ‘ecumenical’ atheist. Your bile is directed at one Christian sect, not all of them.
You’re nothing but an old fashioned anti-Catholic bigot. Almost certainly from a Protestant background (Grandpa was in the Orange Lodge, perhaps?) At least you have the sense not to lamely defend yourself with something like, “But I tolerate Calwe… Keating, how dare you call me anti-Catholic!”
Every Leftwinger from an RC background who reads this will know what I’m talking about. Many are pro-choice and don’t believe in a monotheistic God, yet when they hear someone like you sprout a conspiracy theory about Kevin Andrews and Kevin Rudd being in the same faction, that these two are somehow working hand in hand to force rosaries down peoples throats, then yes, they think BIGOT.
(And they were probably cool with Nettle telling Abbott to keep his ‘rosaries off her ovaries’, as he was the aggressor in that stoush. Kerry wasn’t going out of her way to attack Catholicism-in-politics as you have here.)
That you think I’m “young and confused” because I accept the last 40 years of social progression in this country really does make you a Left version of a Hansonite. Thankfully time is on my side’s side, not your’s. It’s people in my generation and younger that will put the ideology of the Joe De Bruyn’s out to pasture, not people like you who almost certainly need old guys like that in ALP to validate your own hatreds.
(BTW, Tony Blair converted just as he left Number 10, but I’m not surprised that in your feverish imagination his conversion somehow played a role in the Labour Party turning against him.)
“He is Christian (which can mean many things from fundamentalism to Spong and beyond), he lets that inform his behaviour and personal position on social issues.”
And then having expressed his personal views, he allowed them to be subservient to the wishes of the majority of his employers. Which exactly what a Westminister style pollie should do.
“The opportunity arose and he took it. Never underestimate Mr Rudd’s political cunning.”
Do you have any idea how hard it is to organise a formal and carefully calculated statement by a senior Government member? Never mind trying to arrange the apparently artless use of a common expletive by a senior pollie during an unscripted TV appearance.
Y’know sometimes a shit storm is just a tremor in a coffee cup.
Now I think about it, I could crap on length from a very knowledgeable perspective indeed about the black arts of subliminal government and corporate folky faux positioning. But I need my beauty sleep for the “Mary & Max” première this evening.
NickWS, do you deny that right wing Labor policies have been identified with Catholic politicians over the years (e.g. the groupers?) And are you aware that doctors in Catholic hospitals and others are trying to roll back the Victorian abortion decriminalisation laws? It’s not hatred to point out these things, it’s just what they do. Love the sinner, hate the sin, as the religious would say.
Nickws@24 you win the prize for the most frothing snarling juvenile hate spray of the day.
Very imaginative too, loved the weird shit about the Orange Lodge!
Nabokov@25 and 26, the “apparently artless” is exactly what politicians do better than the rest of us, that’s why they are there and we are not.
But like you, I have better things to do that argue the toss over this particular storm in a coffee cup.
Catholics ought to be able to participate in politics qua Catholics. Is that so terribly wrong?
I think I’m fairly certain that we all agree so far on the major issue—that in all situations, all women’s freedom to make decisions over their own bodies, especially about reproduction, should be maximised. Where we differ is in the question of whether a minority group should participate in politics without constantly being singled out for special criticism. We have relatively few Indigenous politicians, and it’s to Australians’ credit that we don’t write off their opinions about land rights or the NT Intervention because of their Aboriginality. Catholic participation in Parliament is however constantly described as being itself a pernicious phenomenon. Though he was being sarcastic and more than a little bit naughty, NickWS was right to point out anti-Catholicism as an old Protestant hangover from the days of sectarianism and it should be called as such.
Look, I read the latest bits of this thread this morning with my toast and coffee, and it’s probably a bad sign that now that I’m at work I’m still fuming. I think it was the word ‘groupers’, a trigger word for anyone nominally Catholic with any background in Labor politics. The Groupers were bad people, and they left a trail of distrust and hatred that rankles sixty years on. Dropping ‘grouper’ into a discussion is like mentioning ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ at a meeting of Jewish Deputies, or wandering onto a feminist blog and calling someone ‘hysterical’. There’ll be a reaction, and it’ll be ugly.
No, categorically not. Not all Catholics oppose women’s reproductive rights. I can think of two of “them” who host this blog. It’s not (quite) hatred to point out right-wing Catholics’ anti-feminism, Helen, but to single out the activities of Catholics in Parliament themselves is an argument with a history of sectarian privilege.
Liam wrote:
That’s not what she was doing and I think it’d be extremely hard to even find anyone in Australia that even remembers sectarianism (other than banjo playing pockets of rural Queensland), let alone carries it on, which makes it very hard to prove the accusation of sectarian privilege.
Come off it, David. Here’s grace pettigrew from up the thread:
When Michael Danby or Mark Dreyfus get up and say anything about Israel, nobody calls them out for being creepy Jews.
Liam wrote:
That’s silly Liam. It’s an over-reading of “creepy RC cardigan men” for a start. Most people make a very clear distinction between people who see themselves as culturally RC and those who see themselves as religiously RC. It’s the long standing and well documented opposition of the conforming religiously RC that is at issue here. That some (perhaps most) culturally RC people oppose the church’s ridiculous policies on birth control is irrelevent. You’re using the same stupid argument (that criticism of israel is automatically anti-semitic) that stifles debate about anti-terrorism activities. Quit being so sensitive!
Let’s pay tribute to all those ALP parliamentarians (particularly the women pollies who gingered this up and pushed it along), who voted down the Global Gag regulation, and in doing so, allowed us all a brief moment in the sun to dance on the political grave of the original creepy RC cardigan man, Brian Harridine.
And that’s it for me on this thread. Fume on.
Liam
I oppose the efforts of the religious right on all sides, in the US it tends to be just as much some kind of pentacostalist-loopy-protestant element that infests the forced-birth (“pro-life”) movement. Mention of religion is pertinent when you’re talking about Joe De Bruyn or Julian McGauran, because their opposition to womens’ reproductive rights is specifically linked to their religious beliefs: i.e., human life starts at conception, humans made in God’s image, therefore, abortion inadmissible. You can’t separate their avowed membership of a specific religion from their lobbying for restriction of abortion. Application of this specific religious belief to State law is a violation of church/state separation as well as a direct oppression of people who don’t subscribe to that religion. That’s my objection to the religious right, but you’ll find I’m just as underwhelmed with the protestant end of the religious right in the US as the catholic end.
To be more concise perhaps, the right to private worship is one thing, the imposition of one religion’s strictures on the entire population is another. I’m sure most people here recognise the difference when we’re talking about actual politicians having an impact on actual legislation – and lobbyists as well of course.
Erratum: Strike “in the US” from the previous comment as there’s a definite non-Catholic religious right element here – e.g. the Catch the Fire “ministries”.
Oh it’s on, now. Don’t worry my pretty little Romish head?
David, a group’s participation in politics shouldn’t be contingent on toleration by the majority. It’s just as abhorrent to a liberal civil society to say “Catholics should be in Parliament, just as long as they read Rerum Novarum and not Humanae Vitae“, as it is to say “Muslims should be in Parliament, just as long as they condemn the terrorists and the Taliban and female genital mutilators at every opportunity”. It’s holding religious people to a different standard, and—I’ll say it again—it’s sectarian.
The SDA’s long standing positions on the usual trifecta (euthanasia, abortion, gay sex) is bad because it’s bad policy, not because it’s informed by the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Liam wrote:
No, but they shouldn’t be claiming any kind of special privilege based on their religious beliefs either. They have a responsibility to be representative of their constituents and not place their personal beliefs ahead of those in the broader community.
These people are not being singled out for being Catholic – they’re singled out for being stupid with the most obvious cause of stupidity being their church leaders and doctrine whom those individuals follow without thought. That’s not a sectarian angle of criticism, it’s just a fact.
Helen: we don’t have formal church/state separation in Australia and never have had. §116 only prohibits the Commonwealth from establishing a religion; the States, in theory, may do as they please. Our Head of State is also the head of the Church of England, and is forbidden from marrying a Catholic.
As to the “right to private worship”: it’s not about worship. Catholic doctrine informs all of the political positions of the Labor politicians we’re talking about, from their support for trade unions to their opposition to the Iraq war.
“When Michael Danby or Mark Dreyfus get up and say anything about Israel, nobody calls them out for being creepy Jews.”
Liam, I live in Danby’s electorate and believe me, lots of people call him out on his pro Israel stance.
People are quite rightly suspicious about how a parliamentarians religious views effect how they vote. You can’t so easily divorce their beliefs about the ‘trifecta’ from their religious beliefs. They’re intertwined.
I agree that religious belief and political stances are indivisible. That’s why I think that Catholic participation in political debate is as legitimate as non-Catholic participation—even, and especially when, I disagree with it.
Anyway—I said almost everything I have to say on this matter back in 2007 on this thread, when it was Sikhs in the firing line.
I didn’t know youse was a gypsy Liam – romish?
Is that why you have a beret?
Homo Utilis, you know the song: I’m a wanderer, I Rome around.
Roam about stealin’ horses I bet.
religious belief and political stances are indivisible.
I just think that’s a false premise. Atheist, then, would necessarily always vote informal? Are there no Anglicans, quakers, buddhists, Hindus or agnostics opposing the Iraq war? Joining Trade unions?
This also seems very muddled because you are objecting to me objecting to measures taken by catholic politicians/lobbyists (e.g, the Catholic doctors opposing the Victorian abortion legislation) which in this specific case, unlike the Iraq war one, is clearly and overtly informed by their faith-based thinking. If religious belief and political stances really are indivisible, I won’t be able to voice my disagreement with say Julian McGauran or De Bruyn without being called an anti-Catholic. Thus, debate with all religious politicos would be off limits.
The weakness of the Church/State separation in Australia is a hindrance to good government for everybody, not a desirable thing unless you’re a member of whoever is the dominant religion. Maybe, if you’re female, not even then.
Helen @ 44 – The concept of church and state separation was originally about separation of the institutions. For example, the head of government should not be the head of a church because of the conflict of interest and the huge amount of power that would give. These days we’d extend that concept to secular organisations as well. The head of the business council shouldn’t be the minister for workplace relations and the head of unions ACT shouldn’t at the same time be the minister for small business. Though its generally accepted that the same person can do the two roles at different times in their career.
On an individual level however, it seems to make as much sense to say someone should not bring their views developed from their association with a religious organisation as to say they should not bring them from a secular organisation they are a member of.
I really hope we don’t go down the US route of much stricter church/state separation to the point where people can’t even put temporary memorials like crosses for loved ones who have died on public land as this would technically break the church/state separation.
Nothin’ wrong with a bit of mick (or proddy) bashing, anyway.
“If religious belief and political stances really are indivisible, I won’t be able to voice my disagreement with say Julian McGauran or De Bruyn without being called an anti-Catholic”
Indivisible ≠ identical.
But Helen, there’s not much point to a set of religious beliefs (or corpus of atheist skeptical beliefs) if they don’t inform political practice. What else are to we make of the Beatitudes in the Christian New Testament?
Our issue with the global gag rule as it existed was that it was bad policy for women; not that it had a faith-based genealogy. As I’ve said, there are many other issues on which politicians establish positions based on faith with which we wouldn’t disagree. Homelessness policy, for instance.
Personally, I think best practice for disagreeing with Catholics was exhibited by, of all people, Frank Sartor in 2007 over a bill on stem cells:
Acknowledge legitimacy—then disagree (successfully). See? No need for creepy cardigans.
I remember sectarianism. I was told by my father I’d go to hell if I ever went into a Protestant Church.(I was brought up Catholic.) Mind you, that’s no real excuse.
Liam, in the above comment you make out that it was me who made the remark about Creepy Cardigans.
Apart from that there’s nothing in it that I disagree with.
Sorry. Mea culpa.
[says Hail Mary]