Last Updated: November 22, 2009
Contact us: wmnsweb@iprimus.com.au

CONTRIBUTIONS

"To complain to an outside body in a neo-liberal climate is a dissident act that requires real courage ... We have to critique what is happening and somehow resist being drawn into the vortex of the market that wants to drown us."
Prof Margaret Thornton

November 24, 2009 - Zelda D'Aprano

CORRECTION

14th October - I  recently came across two different claims made concerning the production of the Mr Bolte, ‘Pregnant Victorian Premier’ poster, which was displayed all over Melbourne on  the 21st May 1971. Both claims were incorrect and I feel it necessary to prevent any further speculation by detailing the events leading to its production and distribution.

The first claim made was that Braith Hull, the then husband of Bon Hull, printed the poster. When the Women’s Action Committee got under way in 1970,  Braith Hull operated a printery and kindly offered to print any leaflets required. He also printed the poster advertising our National Women’s Liberation Conference held in Melbourne. However, when asked by Bon to print the Pregnant Bolte Poster, he declined. 

The second claim made was that the Melbourne University Women’s Liberation group printed the poster.

Because of my involvement with the left over many years, it was agreed that I seek the assistance of Ted Thompson who also ran a printery. After describing our idea of the poster required, he undertook this assignment and duly notified me to examine the final graphics before printing. We went ahead with the production of the poster.

I studied a map of the city area of Melbourne and divided it up into sections in preparation for the paste up. On the evening of the 20th May,  I drove the women without transport to their designated area with their pails of paste and brushes and they did an excellent job. I am sure that almost all of these women had never before participated in this type of activity.

The following news item appeared in the Herald next day -
see Women Working Together, suffrage and onwards: Chapter 13: Finding Our Voice - Women's Liberation, Section 4: Things Were Starting to Happen.

November 17, 2009 - Geraldine Robertson

The industrialization of prostitution and the sex trade has created a multibillion-dollar global market, involving millions of women, that makes a substantial contribution to national and global economies.The Industrial Vagina examines how prostitution and other aspects of the sex industry have moved from being small-scale, clandestine, and socially despised practices to become very profitable legitimate market sectors that are being legalised and decriminalised by governments. Sheila Jeffreys demonstrates how prostitution has been globalized through an examination of:

• the growth of pornography and its new global reach
• the boom in adult shops, strip clubs and escort agencies
• military prostitution and sexual violence in war
• marriage and the mail order bride industry
• the rise in sex tourism and trafficking in women.

She argues that through these practices women’s subordination has been outsourced and that states that legalise this industry are acting as pimps, enabling male buyers in countries in which women’s equality threatens male dominance, to buy access to the bodies of women from poor countries who are paid for their sexual subservience.This major and provocative contribution is essential reading for all with an interest in feminist, gender and critical globalisation issues as well as students and scholars of international political economy

November 11, 2009 - Geraldine Robertson

Thirty years ago, women remembered women raped in war. I have added a new entry to Women Working Together suffrage and onwards http://home.vicnet.net.au/~women
Chapter 14 section 24..ANTI-ANZAC DAY DEMONSTRATION (Women Against Rape) -

Women's Liberation leaflet: 'women walk against war women walk against war women walk against war women walk against war women walk against war women walk against war ...

Women do this because war is the belief that violence solves things
Women walk away from the shrine because the shrine speaks mostly of men
Women walk away from the shrine because men killed women in its wars and
they are not mourned on this day
Women walk away from the shrine because men raped women in its wars and
they are not mourned on this day
Women are against violence because it savages their minds and their bodies

Men go to war to protect what they own
Men beat their women to punish what they own
Men rape women to make them their own

Women demonsrate in a non violent action against a violent history made by men and
celebrated by a nation on ANZAC DAY. Private papers

November 3, 2009 - Leslie Cannold

From The Age
Women are being failed by our hospitals

THERE is no room at the Women's. Once the hospital saw its mission as looking after all Victorian women. Now, those inquiring about having their baby there will be asked their postcode. Should they fall outside the hospital's new geographical catchment area and be at small risk of complication, they'll be referred to a hospital closer to home.

Poor government policy and planning, an upward blip in the fertility rate and Victoria's burgeoning population has seen the number of births jump 12 per cent in the state over a three-year period - but the number of maternity beds fail to keep pace.

As a consequence, the Victorian Government now ''encourages'' women to give birth at their local, suburban hospital.

For most women, the major anxiety generated by the squeeze is finding somewhere, anywhere, to have their baby. But behind the scenes, some perinatal specialists and GPs who share the care of pregnant women with hospitals are fretting about women being referred away from secular public hospitals and towards institutions that are Catholic-run. The reason is simple. There are a number of services that Catholic-run hospitals, even those dedicated to women's health, will not provide.

As the the church's episcopal vicar for life and health, Anthony Fisher, explained earlier this year: ''Catholic health-care institutions, whatever legal, financial or other pressure they are under, may not co-operate with abortion, sterilisation or euthanasia.''Nor do Catholic-run health care institutions offer a full range of contraceptive services.

Some women discover, as they approach a planned caesarean section, that they won't be able to have their tubes tied at the time of delivery, requiring them to undertake the cost, inconvenience and risk of the procedure at a later date. Others, reeling from the blow of abnormal results from prenatal tests or screens the hospital will provide, find they must transfer to another hospital if they make the difficult decision to terminate.

Women whose membranes rupture too early may be denied surgery to remove the doomed foetus, or intervention to speed the delivery of their dead baby unless sepsis is diagnosed and the woman's womb or life is at risk.

Rape victims brought into casualty will not be offered emergency contraception. If staff suspect pregnancy, the woman will not be referred to a rape crisis centre that does offer the pills.

Do Victorian women know the limits placed on their care when they enter a Catholic-run hospital? For many, it seems not. There seem to be no attempts by referring hospitals to inform women about these matters. Nor do Catholic-run hospitals make specific disclosures when women arrive for care. For instance, neither the patient information guide nor the guidelines for those sharing the care of pregnant patients with the Mercy make any reference to the limits the hospital puts on services because of its religious views.

Both hospitals and the governments that fund them to provide essential health-care services to Victorian taxpayers have an obligation to ensure that women, and the external health-care providers sharing care of such patients, are fully informed about what a hospital's religious philosophy might mean for a patient's care.

Simply identifying a hospital as Catholic and assuming everyone - including very young women, new migrants to Australia and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds - knows what this means, fails the most basic disclosure requirements necessary for informed consent. But the real problem is policy that allows publicly funded institutions to become central to health-care arrangements designed to serve all citizens, despite the known limits such institutions place on the care they provide to women.

Catholics, and other faith-based groups in Australia, are entitled to their moral beliefs and to the expression of these through the institutions they run. But women have a right to health-care provision that does not put them at the mercy of those views, and the health-care information and options that flow from them.

There is no problem with Catholic hospitals providing boutique care to women and men able to make informed decisions about an institution's suitability to their needs. But when women have no choice but to become patients in this system for emergency and essential health care, something is terribly wrong.

The Catholic Church sees the provision of health care as part of its mission, believing that a Catholic-run hospital ''serves the whole community, especially the vulnerable''. Pregnant women are vulnerable. Rape victims are vulnerable. Patients without information and real options about their health care are vulnerable.

Victorian women pay taxes and are citizens with a right to informed decision-making about, and with access to, the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, not just those the Catholic-run hospital nearest them is willing to provide.

Leslie Cannold is a medical ethicist and adjunct senior lecturer at Monash University's School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine.

October 4, 2009 - Margaret Thornton

From The Age:
Allowing religious organisations to discriminate runs contrary to community standards.

WHY are Victorian religious groups committed to inequality? I thought that it was a Christian precept that everyone was equal before God. As with Animal Farm, however, it appears that some are more equal than others.

In a surprise move that pre-empted the report of the parliamentary Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Inquiry into Exceptions and Exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act, Attorney-General Rob Hulls has announced that religious organisations may continue to discriminate selectively.

Although they will not be permitted to discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, political belief, age, physical features or breastfeeding, they will be permitted to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status or sexuality. While the proscription on the ground of the first cluster is claimed to represent an ''advance'' on the present position, the continuing exception in respect of the latter is a retrograde step.

It also imports a curious ranking of grounds based on a questionable moralising subtext that does not accord with contemporary community attitudes. The exception would continue to conflict with the objectives of the act itself, which promotes equal opportunity for everyone, and the elimination (as far as possible) of discrimination between people.

It is unlikely that there is a rational theological basis for the discrimination, although those fundamentalist Christians who favour a literal interpretation of the Bible can usually find something.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities specifies a right to freedom of religion, which is conceptualised in individualistic terms. This means that everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, however bizarre, and they can also engage in the religious practices of their choice.

The problem with the exception is that it extends the protection of personal belief to organisations such as schools run by religious bodies. A dangerous elision then occurs in attributing personal beliefs, which are deserving of protection, to corporations and other entities, which allows them to assume a conservative moralising position in regard to employees and clients. The most likely targets are gays and lesbians, or people (invariably women) in de facto relationships.

While the sex of a person is usually obvious, their sexuality, marital status and gender orientation may require inquiry and interrogation, which would be contrary to the provision of the charter dealing with privacy. Far from effecting harmonisation between the Equal Opportunity Act and the charter, in accordance with the terms of reference, Mr Hulls' proposal ensures continuing incompatibility.

The caveat of the Hulls' proposal is that any discrimination should be in accordance with the religious tenets of an organisation. This means that a person discriminated against would be able to challenge it. This would entail going to the trouble of lodging a complaint of discrimination, seeking to have it conciliated, and then facing the considerable expense, stress and uncertainty of legal proceedings if conciliation were unsuccessful.

Even if the burden of proof was reversed and the religious body were unable to show that the discrimination was in accordance with its beliefs and the aggrieved person succeeded, would he or she want to work in a hostile environment anyway? They could find that they were blackballed, and their career ruined.

But why should private schools that are the recipients of considerable public funds be entitled to ignore the general law? If religious bodies claim that their freedom of religion justifies them discriminating against citizens by virtue of sex, sexuality or marital status, they should be precluded from receiving substantial moneys from the state. After all, it has been contributed by those selfsame citizens.

The exception under the guise of ''religious freedom'' no longer accords with community norms. Nor does it comport with the norms of diversity and tolerance associated with modern democracies, among which Mr Hulls would like to include Victoria.

Many of the 53 exceptions currently in the act are at odds with community attitudes. It is disappointing that Mr Hulls succumbed to pressure from a small group of religious extremists to maintain discrimination. In the process he sacrificed not only his stated commitment to the modernisation of the act, but his credibility as a reformer. He could find that the move backfires. Decent Victorians prefer principle to pork barrelling.

Margaret Thornton is a professor of law at the Australian National University.

September 26, 2009 - Zelda D'Aprano

Dear Sister,   I am trying to develop an accurate list of Women ‘s  Movement Conferences, dates and venues.  Can you help?  
Please contact me on faiga1@tpg.com.au - Zelda D'Aprano

Is this list of Women’s Conferences correct?  Please make corrections and or additions:-

1970                Left wing women’s Conference.  Minto,  NSW

1971                WL National Conference. Melbourne  August 28-29. 

Women at work and Women in Trade Unions (Women and Labour)

1973                WL Mount Beauty. Victoria WL National Conference Adelaide   This may have been the 3rd  

Women and Labour Conference. WL Women  & Labour Conference   Sydney  Is this No 4?           

1974                National Conference Feminism & Socialism.  University of Melb. 5th-6th October.

1975                Women and Labour Conference   January.

1975                International Women’s Year     Conference   Canberra

1975               Women and Madness Conference.  Melbourne University.  August. 9th -10th

1985                WL Times  Up Conference. Melbourne. 

Equal Pay.  13-15 Sept. Princes Hill High School .  Melbourne.

1975                National Women’s  Health Conference.   Brisbane

1976                Melbourne Women’s Liberation Policy and Strategy Conference       February.

1976                Women and Labour Conference . Melbourne University.

1976                 Melbourne State College.  Melbourne University.

1978                Women and Labour Conference

1979                Monash University Women’s  Conference . Social Studies.

1980                Women and Labour Conference   Daphne Gollan

1981                Women and Labour discussion as an IWD activity. West Melbourne.

1981                Women, Patriarchy and the future forum.  Princes Hill High School.       

1990                National Women’s Conference,  Sept 29th -1st October.  Canberra

1995                5th Women & Labour Conference  Macquarie University. September. Sydney

1997                6th Women & Labour Conference   Deakin University   Victoria

1998                Victorian Women’s Trust.  Unfinished Business Conference 7th July 

                        Equal Pay for Women.  Trades Hall.  Melbourne 

2001                AWORC  Conference  17th November. What does AWORC  stand for?

August 5, 2009 - Margaret Thornton
Copied from The Age (Opinion Column) -

Our attitude to human rights seems to befit colonial times. Exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act just foster more prejudice.

ANY advocacy of human rights seems to inflame community passions. As soon as a modest claim is made - even if only in the formal sense of treating like cases alike – individuals and groups with vested interests leap to their feet and demand that such rights be countered by their freedom to discriminate. Well, they may not couch their argument quite like that, but that is the gist of it.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 is a good example of the result. Even though it followed similar acts of the 1970s and ’80s, it is riddled with exceptions - 53 of them.

The rhetorical aims of the act are expressed in terms of equal opportunity for everyone without regard to race, sex, sexuality, impairment, age and a range of other attributes. However, the exceptions make it clear that the commitment to the non-discrimination principle in employment, education, services, accommodation, clubs and sport is ambivalent and lukewarm. Every instance of a prohibition of discrimination is qualified by a list of exceptions – many of which are questionable. How can their existence allow Victoria to claim to be in the vanguard on human rights in Australia?

Effecting a degree of harmonisation between this act and the Human Rights Charter is the invidious task before the Parliament’s scrutiny of acts and regulations committee. What is to be done?

I would start by removing quite a few of the exceptions from the act and reducing the ambit of others. Let’s look at examples that highlight the tendency in favour of over-inclusiveness. What we typically see is the kernel of a justifiable exception that is expanded to embrace an entire field.

For example, discrimination in regard to the provision of personal services in one’s home may be justifiable, but why is Victoria emulating the employment practices of Ancient Rome by protecting nepotism (the offering of employment to relatives in a family business)?

Similarly, workplaces with no more than five employees are treated as though they were extensions of private households. Is it right that employers in thousands of shops, cafes, service stations and small professional practices all over the state be free to give rein to their prejudices and refuse to employ women, indigenous people, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds or gay people when they are engaged in business for profit with the imprimatur of the state?

While the cost to small business is invariably raised as the reason for evading the general law, that is nonsensical in the discrimination context. Far from costing money, surely the appointment on merit of the most efficient and capable workers saves money.

It is notable that the federal legislation, which proscribes discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability and age, does not have a comparable provision exempting small workplaces. The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, for example, has been operating for more than 30 years and the sky has not fallen in.

My second example relates to the right to freedom of religion, which is recognised by the charter. That is uncontentious as belief is a private matter, but why should the immunity be extended to the activities of religious bodies where religious practice is not the core business. Over-inclusiveness is once again the tenor of the exception.

I am referring to the claimed ‘‘right’’ of a religious body to employ whoever it wishes in lay positions. Isn’t the issue the same as for the shop or the office? That is, shouldn’t the best person for the job be appointed?

Wouldn’t most people, including parents paying hefty fees to a school under the auspices of a religious body, prefer a maths teacher who was on top of the syllabus rather than someone who wasn’t but claimed to be a true believer? Isn’t there also something just a tad repugnant about prying into the private life and sexuality of job applicants when such factors are far from being inherent requirements of a job – or, for that matter, relying on outdated and inappropriate stereotypes based on race, sex or age?

This is exactly the sort of prejudice that the act is designed to inhibit.

I don’t think private schools should be permitted to exclude students on the basis of race, sex, sexuality or religion either, since they are the recipients of substantial public funds. While some of the most prestigious schools may have had a religious rationale originally, one suspects that this has largely dissipated and been replaced by class interests.

No legislature has been brave enough to tackle class discrimination, illustrated also by the exception accorded powerful private men’s clubs. The shift from a class-based to a merit-based society represents a significant step in the modernisation and democratisation of a society.

The extensive exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act not only serve to mask class discrimination, but also foster prejudice and bigotry in respect of sex, race and sexuality. They are more suited to a colonial backwater than a modern multicultural and pluralistic state.

It is hoped that any recommendations for change that the committee might make won’t disappear once more into a bottom drawer.

Margaret Thornton is professor of law and Australian Research Council professorial fellow at the Australian National University. Public hearings on exceptions and exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act conclude in Melbourne today.

20/7/09 - NATALYA ESTEMIROVA IS NOT ALONE

You have probably heard of the assassination/murder last week - 15 July 2009 - of the outspoken human rights activist Natalya Estemirova.

Natalia Estemirova: Human Rights Defender Award Speech 2007: 'In Chechnya, the government creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.  Those who witness abuse keep silent, for if they speak they can soon become a victim.  Can you imagine living each day wondering who might turn you in to the government for saying the wrong thing?  It could be a stranger, but it could be a friend or even a family member. 

Without knowing who to trust, Chechens rarely speak about the conflict.  As a result, it is incredibly difficult for an outside organization or international agency to learn about the treacherous conditions.   To get people to talk, you have to prove that no harm will come to them and that their actions will garner strong results.

Over a decade ago, Memorial formed to make the victims' stories heard.  My colleagues and I have all been affected by the conflict.  Some of us have lost loved ones and simply could not allow the government to get away with it.  We have engaged in careful dialogue for years with victims.

Moving from village to village, and home to home, we explain to them why silence will not help.  We build their trust in us, and demonstrate that their voices are crucial for exposing the truth about what the government has done...' 

Natalya Estemirova was also the first recipient of the Anna Politkovskaya award, which was established in 2007 by Reach All Women in War (RAWW) -

'to help and support women who are human-rights activists and journalists who, like Anna, tried to assist the victims in those hot spots despite the fact that they risked their lives doing this'. http://www.rawinwar.org

RAWW says 'tried' rather than 'tries' because the award was created following Anna's assassination/murder - she was found shot dead on Saturday, 7 October 2006 in the elevator of her apartment block in central Moscow. (Wikipedia)

A year later, in 2008, it was Natalya Estemirova who presented the second Anna Politkovskaya Award, to Malalai Joya (who you may have seen in Melbourne last week). Malalai speaks of receiving the award in her book Raising My Voice:

Malalai Joya: 'In October 2008, I visited the United Kingdom for the first time to receive the Anna Politkovskaya Award, presented by the group Reach All Women in War. I was deeply honoured to receive this award, which links me to the memory of an extraordinary woman who sacrificed her life for telling the truth and fighting for justice.

(Anna) Politovskaya was a Russian journalist who was murdered in a contract killing after writing a book on the war in Chechnya and the presidency of Vladimir Putin ...

Her perseverance, bravery and dedication to justice inspire me.' MacMillan 2009 p.207

I have been unable to find an applicable quote from Natalya about how she lived with the risks she was taking, so, as Malalai also lives in the shadow of assassination/murder threats and attempts, I think her words may apply:  

Malalai Joya: 'Never again will I whisper in the shadows of intimidation. I am but a symbol of my people's struggle and a servant to their cause. And if I were to be killed for what I believe in, then let my blood be the beacon for emancipation and my words a revolutionary paradigm for generations to come.' http://www.wikipedia.org

Malalai Joya: 'They will kill me but they will not kill my voice, because it will be the voice of all Afghan women. You can cut the flower, but you cannot stop the coming of spring.' www.wikipedia.org

It is to be hoped that the support Malalai receives continues to keep her safe from harm. Natalya's and Anna's deaths should shock the world.

To finish, I took this quote from A Russian Diary, Anna Politkovskaya's last book, published after her terrible death:

Anna Politkovskaya: 'Am I Afraid?
People often tell me I am a pessimist; that I do not believe in the strength of the Russian people; that I am obsessive in my opposition to Putin and see nothing beyond that.

I see everything, and that is the whole problem. I see both what is good and what is bad. I see that people would like life to change for the better, but are incapable of making that happen, and that in order to conceal this truth they concentrate on the positive and pretend the negative isn't there.

To my way of thinking, a mushroom growing under a large leaf can't just hope to sit it out. Almost certainly someone is going to spot it, cut it out and devour it. If you were born a human being, you cannot behave like a mushroom ...

If anyone thinks they can take comfort from the 'optimistic' forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it also a death sentence for our grandchildren.' Vintage Books pp.299-300

In sisterhood,
Geraldine
p.s. Malalai Joya is, of course, also connected to us. Onnie Wilson has been instrumental in bringing Malalai and RAWA women here.
The founder of RAWA, Neena, was assassinated/murdered - see the RAW website or Malalai's book Raising My Voice. Onnie has offered to do a review for our Women's Web website and I will let you know when it is ready. 
Onnie can also assist you if you would like to support Malalai Joya or RAWA. 

28/10/08 From Women for Wik then Women from the Prescribed Area Peoples' Alliance:

This statement was from Women for Wik women Claire, Eileen, Olga, Raelene, Christine, Rosie, and Eva: 'Statement on Monitoring the Federal Action in the Northern Territory -

The Federal Action in the Northern Territory could provide a unique opportunity to improve conditions in Aboriginal communities, but there is also a real possibility that it may make things worse. As currently planned, it will undermine key aspects of Aboriginal societies - country, kin and culture. Moreover, by using a top-down approach, it has the potential to work against self-government and, in some instances, contravene human rights. This will not improve the lives of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.

Accordingly, we call on both Federal and Territory governments to recognise the importance of Indigenous identity and develop an environment of mutual respect through cross-cultural awareness, communication and engagement. Like the many Australians who walked the Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of reconciliation, we believe our generation can ensure a fair go for Indigenous citizens.' Women for Wik http://www.womenforwik.org/index.html

From Prescribed Area People's Alliance meeting website and sent to Women's Web by Women for Wik: 'We Aboriginal women from the Prescribed Area People’s Alliance meeting yesterday, September 29 2008, met to talk on issues that affect us the most out of this intervention.  We have made a statement.  We don’t want the intervention.  We want to manage our communities the proper way, the way we want it, this is our community, we are the ones that live there, listen to us and our cultural ways.

 Racism - The intervention law is racist and we want protection under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

 Rights - Intervention has taken away our people’s rights.

 Law - There is one law and that’s our law. Our laws don’t change.  White people are changing their law all the time.

 Culture - We have been practicing our culture for thousands and thousands of generations. We want to strongly maintain and practice our culture.  We want to stay in our communities and pass on traditional knowledge to the future generations.

 Governments - Governments don’t listen to us.  We want another government who is good, honest and respectful, with good people working for us.  White men are trying to put us back, they like to be in the front. They’re always taking over. Stay with Aboriginal law. Government people bringing in new ways are destroying our way.

 Consultation - We want more consultation and communication.  We want consultation in our languages.  We want to work together.  Intervention workers come in, they don’t know our community and what we need, they don’t work with us.  Government Business Managers are not working properly for our community needs.      Community management belongs to us.  Government works 9 - 5, community is 24/7.

 Police - Police can do what they like, get away with anything since the intervention started. We’d like them to ask us how we’d like to deal with community issues.  We’d like to work in partnership to deal with community problems.

 Income Management - There’s no financial programs to support our people.  A blanket approach to Income Management is the wrong way.  Income management is bringing everyone into town.  People don’t want to have to come into town.  They want to stay in their own communities.

 Nothing has improved - There’s no new houses, schools or anything for communities. They’ve only built new houses for the new intervention staff.  We had programs created by the community for our community.  We wanted more support for them.  Community programs have been taken away.  They’ve taken away our night patrol, community bus  and women’s centres. 

 Going backwards - For old people the intervention is bringing up bad memories of the past, the old days, the ration days, the dog tag days and the mission days.

 Health - We want permanent doctors and nurses in our communities that we can trust, not the fly in fly out, one-day or one week intervention doctors.  Give our people the opportunity to be health workers in our communities.

 Education - We want to our young people to stay on land and learn culture.  We want to see kids going to school and getting a proper education in a school that’s on Aboriginal land, not to have to send them away.

 Elders - Our old people are our government.  We listen to them.  We want to employ our own people, young people, to care for families. Elders want “Return to Country” programs and aged care facilities in their communities.  We listen to our old people, government should listen to them.

 Calls to action:

1. We call on Quentin Bryce, the Governor General, to come and meet with us women.
2. We call on Jenny Macklin to have proper consultation  with us women.
3. Stop the intervention.  We want to manage our communities the proper way, the way we want it, this is our community, we are the ones that live there, listen to us and our cultural ways.' http://rollbacktheintervention.wordpress.com/

24/10/08 - Women for Wik  response to Jenny Macklin's statement:

Rosie  Scott - Jenny Macklin should be ashamed of misusing the undoubted distress of some
women to impose unfair shame and distress on many, probably more, others.
She makes the absurd claim that taking money away creates norms of
responsibility, and ignores the evidence that treating people like children
encourages childish behaviour. She offers no actual evidence that the
benefits she claims outweigh the harms done by treating all Aboriginal
people in certain communities on one day, as though they are not adult human
beings and free citizens. Paternalism echoes missionary behaviours that
destroyed the pride and mores of the original inhabitants of those areas.

There are other ways of protecting those women and families where financial
misuse, humbugging and neglect occur without depriving others of their
dignity and independence. The Cape York model focuses on families where
there are problems, the NT model captures all people: those without
children, those who have a spotless record as parents and the elders who
deserve respect. Blanket provisions anger those who have been responsible
and undermine their authority in the communities as they line up for others
with store cards. Set up a system that allows those who have no problems to
take control over their own resources.

Using women and children as an excuse for inappropriate losses of civil
liberties is redolent of deeply colonial and patriarchal beliefs. A process
that focuses on families with problems makes some sense and can be seen as
just and useful, retention of the current model makes no sense at all. Jenny
Macklin  needs to recognise that they are  putting the very women they claim
to be protecting at long term risk.. We need to encourage the strong women
in the affected communities to take control and, together with responsible
men, change the local cultures.  They can't provide such leadership if  they
are both shamed by and engaged with the bureaucratic trivia of quarantined
income.

Sent from Eva Cox

VALE PAT GOWLAND
Dr Patricia Ann Morrigan
23rd April 1944 – 16th September 2008

Patricia was born Patricia Ann Leahy into a working class family on a housing estate in war torn London and it was thought she would not survive infancy. No one in her family had ever finished high school and her working class environment was not conducive to educational success. However, Patricia’s 11 plus exam results meant she achieved a place in a grammar school. She did not feel welcomed there, but her father, George, a confirmed Marxist and pacifist involved with the left-wing Irish republican Sinn Féin, encouraged her and she completed secondary schooling.

At age 18 she immigrated to Australia as a young married ‘£10 pom’. She later remarried and had two children Suzanne (later Shanti) and Fleur. In 1975 she became a mature age university student studying sociology, history and women’s studies. She encountered feminism which refined and challenged the radicalism she had inherited from her father. She published academic studies on the women’s Peace Army, the lives of women in families, the division of labour, and Australian family policy. At the same time as she was engaging with these new ideas as an academic, she encountered the women’s liberation movement as an activist and helped establish Australia’s third women’s refuge.

During the 1970s and 80s Pat Gowland maintained a complex identity as a mum cooking dinners and a feminist scholar and activist. Her second marriage ended while she was a student at Monash, and after a time she re-invented herself as Patricia Morrigan. ‘Morrigan’ was the tripartite Irish goddess of battle strife and fertility, and ‘Patricia’ represented her adult woman’s self, reclaimed from the childhood drudge ‘Pat’. During these years, insisting that feminists needed to have fun, she helped institute rituals like the Oestrus festival and Feministmas.

After graduation in 1981 and some years at Monash as a tutor and postgraduate student, Patricia moved into the corporate world to establish the Equal Opportunity strategy for Melbourne City Council.  It was there in 1987 she was introduced to Kashmir Shaivism, Hatha Yoga and Siddha Yoga Meditation.  She went on to work in human resource management positions for the Australian Textile Clothing and Footwear Council, the Ministry of Education and, for a long and arduous period, the Australian Taxation Office. Here she met Martin Tayler, whom she married in 1993 and with whom she found great happiness. The need to reflect on and recover from the tensions of work as a ‘femocrat’ sent her back into academe and her doctoral thesis, submitted in 1998, was passed with acclaim by international examiners.

In 1999, she and Martin relocated to Perth, where Patricia worked as a lecturer at Edith Cowan University, researcher, dance therapist and social artistry facilitator. She embarked with great joy on life as a grandmother to Sanjay and Mikayla. This phase was cut short by cancer. Her personal battle did not mean she turned away from activism. In her last few years Patricia became increasingly involved with the environmental movement as a member of Greenpeace and a local community host for Get Up meetings. She was engaged in several battles with developers to protect the pristine foreshore of the Indian Ocean north of Perth. She continued her commitment to the women’s movement and argued against the increasing denigration and distortion of feminist history. She wrote that feminism had ‘served our country in bringing about all that we now celebrate’.

In her short life Patricia touched many lives of people.  Martin called her ‘My Magic Woman' because she was magical in everything she did and the world is a better place for the contribution she has made.

Yoland Wadsworth, Helen Marshall and Margaret Taylor edited by Martin Tayler.

13th September, 2008
RECOGNITION FOR WOMEN BUILDING COMMUNITIES Diann Rodgers-Healey B.A. DipEd. MEd
Founder Australian Virtual Centre for Leadership for Women (CLW)

In the evolution of leadership theory since the early 1900s, there has been a strong focus on leaders being elected and thus being on the top of the hierarchy, having all the answers and possessing impressive traits to lead others.  Moving away from such classical notions of leadership is the notion of the self appointed leader.  Whilst an elected or appointed leader’s source of power is derived from their position,  the self-appointed leader’s power is from within. Their internalisation of goals, mental imagery to improve the situation and self-talk empowers them. As such, they motivate others to self-lead. This, in fact is one of the tenets of transformational leadership which focuses on the empowerment of others.

Over the last three years, CLW has turned its attention to discovering who are the women in Australia who appoint themselves as leaders to build communities by addressing specific and everyday needs. Acknowledging their achievements and how these women collaborate with others to enact shared visions, CLW has recognised a number of women through its Leadership Achievement Award for Women. Below is an honour roll listing them. Their achievements are detailed at www.leadershipforwomen.com.au

2006: Melanie Mumford in making Bass Coast Shire a Refugee Welcome Zone; Louise Bannister for creating theWell and Able program; Christina Borisavljevic for establishing the counselling and support service in Boambee East, NSW; Mary Hollingworth for co-ordinating the Glen Innes Show Society Ladies; Kathryn Keen for developing the online Ozark and Ozbird for wildlife carers across Australia.

2007: Emma Kirkwood for founding The Stillbirth Foundation; Jessica Brown for founding The Life Changing Experiences Foundation; Indu Balachandran for developing Youth Challenge Australia networking youth in Australia and India; Liz Everard for the Body Esteem Project in Western Australia for women with eating disorders; Gainore Atkins for developing the Hobsons Bay Women’s Referral Service in Victoria for women experiencing domestic violence; Celia Bray for the Festival of Dreams Project in Tasmania

2008: Sarah Elston and Caitlin Grigsby for founding the Blue Stockings Association; Juliet Bourke for driving the Taskforce on Care Costs (TOCC); Helen Anne Clarke for the “Hand to the Land” and “Renewal for Rural Women” Programmes; Paula Curotte for founding the ‘Soufflé Sisters;’ Danielle Ecuyer for founding the Women for Change Alliance; Rhonda Obad for founding the Bridge Back to Life Foundation; Margaret Mary Gurry for founding and co-ordinating for eleven years the Friday Night School for students of non-English speaking backgrounds.

The Leadership Achievement Awards for Women are open again for its fourth round, diamond sponsored by ANZ, gold sponsored by Australia Post and Avril Henry Pty Ltd and silver sponsored by Living Now Magazine. An application form and details about the Award are at www.leadershipforwomen.com.au 

Nominate yourself or nominate other women for recognition and great prizes! www.leadershipforwomen.com.au

August, 2008
IRRESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (and the Pope)
or "BEWARE OF THE DOGMA"

On the eve of the Pope's arrival in Sydney, Cardinal Pell asked Australians to "populate or perish" (Illawarra Mercury, and other Australian daily papers, 15 July 2008). Pell is one of a long line of holy fathers to press for more babies - presumably not their own. The history of the origin of the Catholic ban on contraception is largely forgotten, after centuries of clouded theological debate removed from the reality of daily life.

The ban on the use of contraceptives followed the bubonic plague, which killed so many people that feudal barons were short of peasants to work their estates. This measure coincided with the introduction of bans of labour unions ("combinations" as they were referred to at the time). Presumably the good lords themselves thought it beneath their dignity to roll up their sleeves to work the fields themselves. They turned to law and religion to bolster their position.

The Anti-Combination Act of 1399 was the first piece of anti-union legislation enacted in England and made it an offence for peasants and workers to organise to improve working conditions. At about the same time, the Catholic Church found that it was immoral for married couples - or anyone - to use contraception. This guaranteed a population explosion in Europe which soon filled the fields with workers, their bargaining power reduced because they could be easily replaced. Women who shared their knowledge of contraception were branded as witches and burnt at the stake. Union organisers were imprisoned; the practice continued well into the nineteenth century - some were transported to Australia.

The population explosion in Europe provided factory fodder for the emerging capitalist class - and canon fodder for imperial wars started by kings, Kaisers and other opportunists. Imperial greed for the riches of the so-called "New World", combined with the manufacture of deadly weapons, resulted in wars fought against Indigenous Peoples on five continents - to steal their land and make way for the land-hungry European hordes.

As the competition between the European imperialists intensified, they turned their guns on each other. During World War l millions of young men were sent to suffer and die - in the failed invasion of Turkey at Gallipolli, the slaughter on the fields of Somme, and the hell of the trenches. All this time women were being cajoled into having more children, although the effort drained the strength of many women, whose untimely death decorated the gravestones.

Even after World War ll, advertising contraceptive products in Australia was banned under the rubric of "populate or perish". Young couples were advised to use the "rythm" method, to confine sexual activity to the so-called "safe" periods of the menstrual cycle - a practice referred to as "Vatican Roulette". If a husband insisted on exercising his "marital rights" during an "unsafe" period, the wife was subjected to the pain and suffering of serial coitus interruptus.

The advent of the contraceptive pill liberated many women from the scourge of such practices. However, on July 25 1968, Pope Paul Vl published his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and reiaterated the dogma that the use of contraceptives :(including the "pill") was against canon law. In doing so, he rejected the advice of his own papal advisory commission.

Fast-forward forty years. A new pope comes to Sydney for a "world yhouth day" that lasts a week. Traffic snarled to a halt over the surfeit of road closures for the Event, and there was ample time to reflect on the impact of various papal decrees as fumes from stationary vehicles engulfed unsuspecting motorists. A gas mask would have come in handy.

I arrived for my Sydney appointment late - after travelling for more than an hour to cover a distance that usually takes fifteen minutes. My friend, who had waited patiently for me to arrive, took me to a local coffee shop. Looking up, I saw the sign on the wall: BEWARE OF THE DOGMA.

Waratah Rose Gillespie

July, 2008
SOLE PARENT PENSIONERS

Hello,

I am writing to ask if you could put something on your website about  the appalling way that genuine low income earners have been treated in the budget. I am a sole parent pensioner, working part time and we simply do not receive enough money to pay rent, bills, & to feed, clothe & educate our children.  Aged pensioners are in an even worse position especially if they do not have superannuation. Statistically, many of these are women.  The cost of living is sky high yet according to the Labour Party, unless you are part of a “working family” earning $50 thousand or more you don’t deserve a decent life.

Even if I were to work full time, there is still only me earning...It is just impossible. I know the Labour Party has promised a review of the welfare system but how long will that take? We need the money now. We have a huge surplus and we pour money overseas whenever there is a disaster (which is the right thing to do) but we have nothing for the people here who are really struggling.

At the moment I am behind in all my bills, including rent and I can’t afford to buy my children winter clothes. What has this country become?

I have emailed Kevin Rudd & my local MP but I feel that more people should start to make a noise. The aged pensioners have begun to protest (as they should) but on the subject of single mothers & other low income groups there is a deafening silence.

I am hoping that visitors to your website will contact their local MP, The Treasurer or The Prime Minister and protest about the way we are being treated.

Hope you can help,

Liz Sparks
Elizabeth Sparks <esparks@aapt.net.au>