Book Review: The Song Of Achillies

 The Song Of Achilles

Author:                          Madeline Miller

Publisher:                      Bloomsbury

Type:                              Soft Cover

Pages:                             352

Genre:                            based on a true story

Published:                      2011

ISBN:                              978-1-4088-1702-5


 This is a large softcover with metallic gold card just behind the cover i am not quite sure if that make it a special edition or something but it is beautiful. Its a historical novel so sadly no artwork adorns the pages. 

 Everyone should know the story of Patroclus they are one of the most famous gay couples in history. While most focus on the abduction of Helen and the siege of Troy this work actually fills in the gaps in the historical record of the love between the two men.

 If you have ever considered watching the movie Troy, don't as it encourages straight-washing, pick up a copy of this book instead. 

 You will know the fate of the protagonists but the beauty is in the journey. And it is a beautiful journey brought alive by a talented writer. keep in mind this isn't erotica and everything is kept very tasteful. 
  
 This is a great book, it should be read by anyone who doesn't understand the gays. It should be on every high school library shelf. You should read this book.

 Homophobes often forget that humanity has a very queer history as is being demonstrated in Australia as the LGBTQ community is being defamed and terrorised by bigots (some Nazi, some not) arguing we shouldn't have equal rights. Just today A homophobic politician Cory Bernardi has claimed that marriage equality is a "rainbow Trojan horse" he is rather silly so he probably doesn't realise the irony of his statement.

 

Who owns the Rainbow?

Is Ken Ham supporting Pride?

 Ken Ham a bigot of questionable sincerity and sanity, has, with the help of government funds made a model of the mythical ark,  The world flood and ark myth originated as far as we know in the Sumerian mythology recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh. 

 Ken Ham has lit up his model of the ark with rainbow colored lights, but not in support of the LGBT community, he is using the rainbow to try and promote hate and  discord.

 He has claimed that Christians need to take back the rainbow from the LGBT community because he claims that the christian god owns it!

 Firstly this man is wrong, in that Christians are free to use the rainbow, the LGBT community do not own it any more than any one god does. We do receive royalty's every time someone uses a rainbow or sees one in the sky.

 Secondly the rainbow flag created by Gilbert Baker in 1978 is a symbol uniting all people, of all races and religions in peace and the acceptance of the natural diversity of humanity. The colors of the Rainbow flag represent Sex, Life, Healing, Sunlight, Nature, Magic, Art, Serenity and Spirit, all things Ken Ham is against apparently.

  Lets just have a quick look at some actual facts that disprove Ken Hams outrageous claim that his lone god created and owns the rainbow.

 In Aboriginal mythology the rainbows are giant divine serpents with various names and attributes, there are two of great note here; Ungud is said to be androgynous or transgender while another Rainbow Serpent Angamunggi is transgender. 

 In Armenian mythology the rainbow is the belt worn by Tir a sun god of knowledge.

 In Aztec mythology Xochipilli is associated with rainbows and is the god of homosexuality.

 In Greek mythology Iris is the personification of the rainbow and works as liasion between gods and men.

 In Hindu mythology the rainbow is the actual lightning arrow shooting bow of the god Indra. 

 In Japanese mythology rainbows are used for ancestor spirits to travel the realms.

 In Maori mythology the Moon goddess Hina created the rainbow to allow her mortal husband to return to the mortal world.

 In Navajo mythology rainbows are seen as paths that allow holy spits to travel between the mortal and divine realms.

 In Norse mythology the rainbow bridge connects our mortal world with the realm of the gods.

 In Sumerian mythology the gay Gilgamesh from which the ark story originated, the rainbow sanctioned war and was associated with life and immortality.

 There are of course many other instances of the rainbow used in non-christian mythology. His misrepresentation of the facts show Ken Ham has very little knowledge of religion and probably shouldn't be consulted on spiritual issues.

 

 Obviously Ken Ham is just attacking the LGBT community is a publicity stunt to re-engage with his bigoted homophobic base and to try and bring attention to his failing ark model. 
 The Model has previously been criticised for its dodging of taxes, low attendance, highly questionable claims and discriminatory hiring polices.

Coopers "debate" is homophobic

                         Coopers Fake Debate

 The Bible society is a right wing religious hate group that advocates for teaching the bibles in schools, is against the Australian constitution, and opposes equal rights for LGBT Australians, they even have a book "that celebrates impact of the Bible on Australia’s First Nations People!".

 THAT'S PROBLEMATIC

 This bible society has teamed up with Coopers (a brewery that is a heavy donator to the Coalition) as part of a "creative campaign" they have place bible verses on a light Coopers beer's labels and are hosting light discussions on heavy topics. 

 The campaign started with a "debate" on marriage equality. 

And oh my it is a disingenuous bit of rubbish. So we have two coalition politicians siting around a cafe table with the "debate moderator". We are told that one of the politicians is pro-equal rights and the other is for discrimination.
 But that's really where the problem begins they don't call it marriage equality they call it same-sex marriage, and they don't call it pro-discrimination they call it pro-traditional marriage. So right from the start they are phrasing the "debate" in a biased way. And lets just look at that claim of traditional marriage a little bit,

 It is a fact that same sex couples have been getting married since at least 3100 BCE, please observe that this is long before the invention of Christianity which was around 355CE.

  In Australia we see that our marriage laws were changed in the marriage act in 2004, marriage was re-defined to specifically and unconstitutionally to exclude same sex couples. 

 So which is more traditional? 

Being a radical christian group its possible The bible society meant biblical marriage instead of traditional marriage. But that would lead to more problems check out biblical marriage here.

 Firstly the Bible Society claims that "Australia's national conversation has become fraught with shallowness and contempt for those who have a differing opinion,". I would agree that the homophobes excuses for denying LGBT Australians equal rights are often shallow, i would also add nonsensical. I would also agree that homophobes including those using the religion of Christianity as an excuse for their bigotry  have shown contempt for innocent homosexuals for over 200 years and continue to do so. 

 But as to a differing opinion, well that putting it very mildly, the pro-equality side is simply asking that LGBT Australians are given the constitutional rights they should have while the other homophobic side is fighting to keep a 2004 law that actively discriminates against LGBT Australians, i think that's a bit more then a differing opinion. And the only real reason the bigots have for this pro-discrimination stance is they hate gay people, and i don't think that's a good enough excuse to deny equal rights.

Now that that's out of the way i will just correct some of the misinformation presented in the "debate".

 Anyone who opposes Homosexual people having equal rights is by definition homophobic. 

 Equal rights is not a "light" subject, Not when a hate group endorsed by Coalition politicians has recently praised ISIL for killing gay men. Not when homophobes protesting an anti-bullying school program call LGBT children pedophiles and incite others to hang them. Not when up to 17% of male suicides would be prevented by simply allowing marriage equality.

 To suggest the two positions one wanting their constitutional rights and the other wanting discrimination are equal is ridiculous. Whats next a "debate' about racial equality with racists where the two positions are treated as having equal merit?

   

 It is impossible to have a real debate with homophobes. The first thing the homophobe said was a lie.Marriage has not always and is not even currently between one man and one woman, to say otherwise means he is ill informed and therefore shouldn't be forwarding a position on the matter or he is active being actively deceitful. As marriage between same sex couples have been happening since around 3100 BCE then that too predates the Australian state, but look it also predates Christianity. The moderator should have corrected this misinformation, or a better pro-equality speaker should have been given the opportunity to do so. But as it stands now it might look to the uninformed viewer that the homophobes argument was accurate and had merit, while in reality it did not.

 Suggested Bible Verse 01:

 The simple fact is that there is no valid argument against marriage equality. The current laws which re-defined marriage in 2004 to specifically deny same-sex couples the right to marry is immoral, unconstitutional and discriminatory. It should also be noted that the marriage laws are not supposed to reflect one religions current definition of marriage, civil marriage and religious marriage are supposed to be two separate things. Correcting the legal definition of marriage will not effect any religions homophobic definition of marriage at all.

Suggested Bible Verse 02:

What you can do:

Fax your MP and demand they uphold the Australian constitution and embrace Marriage Equality.

A lot of decent people are also boycotting Coopers brewery for this homophobic act.

UPDATE: 

 Coopers brewery have responded to the outcry of disgust by decent Australians. Their first press release defended the "Debate" advertisement, and went so far as to falsely claim the "debate" in the advertisement was balanced! They went on to childishly claim that those offended by the fake debate advertisement were not mature, and that Australia needs to debate if innocent people should have equal rights or if we should continue to allow discrimination against them. 

 They also made the demonstrably false claim that by participating in this joint campaign with the bible society they were not trying to spread any religious messages, this despite the fact that that is the bible society stated purpose for the campaign.

 In this press release there was no apology to the LGBT community of Australia, and there wasn't even mention of the LGBT community. They also didn't commit to doing the Australian thing by standing up for the underdog and making sure LGBT Australians have a fair go at marriage.

                                Awkward Moments Children's Bible a great source for verses

After the backlash from that first obnoxious press release Coopers Brewery released another. This one also repeated the insulting falsehood that they were not pushing any religious message. 
 But remarkably they now claimed that they had nothing to do with the fake debate Coopers advertisement claiming further that their brand was used illegally without their permission. 
 Now if this is true they will obviously try to sever all ties with this horrible bible society and at the very least will sue them in order to protect the Coopers brand. If its true.
 Again no support of equality, LGBT Australians equal rights were mentioned. They didn't identify how they were going to try to mend the damage to the LGBT Australians, or there brand identity.

 #boycottcoopers

 Its not just decent individual Australians who are boycotting Coopers, many clubs and pubs have shown their support for human rights by boycotting Coopers! Careful or you might rekindle our faith in humanity. 
 And wouldn't this be another great opportunity for Prime Minister Trumble to show he has a backbone and actually give LGBT Australians their equal rights?

 VIDEO

* Our video guy is recovering from surgery, he will make a YouTube version of this story when he can, sorry for any inconvenience.

Breaking News: None of this is insulting...

Barnaby Joyce claims that no one has been insulted by the "debate" on equality.

 

 Barnaby Joyce who is unbelievably the deputy PM of Australia, has recently claimed that "I don't see anybody's been assaulted or killed, or even really insulted" as a result of the proposed plebiscite.

 Barnaby Joyce is the buffoon who threatened to kill Johnny Depp's puppys. The same person claimed that gay people shouldn't have equal rights because "everybody doesn't always get everything they want". He attacked the brave people who exposed the cruelty in the Australian wool industry for exposing the cruelty instead of addressing the actual cruelty.

 A bit of back story, the Plebiscite is a public vote on if gay people should have the same rights as straight people. The plebiscite isn't necessary and the current laws are unconstitutional. The vote would not be binding, the government will fund homophobia and hate speech in the lead up to the vote, and even if the vote passed the result wouldn't even grant equal marriage rights, it would entrench LGBT discrimination into law.

 Barnaby Joyce has said this dispute homophobes calling gay people Nazis knowing how offensive that is because the Nazis were persecuting gay men during the holocaust.

  This is despite homophobic flyers being distributed on car windshields and into innocent peoples letter boxes. These flyers were insulting to Nelsen Mandela, children, single parent families, foster families, blended families, and of course LGBT Australians, they were incredibly untruthful, off-topic and bigoted.

 He said this after people protesting an anti-bullying campaign have implied LGBT youth are pedophiles and called for them to be lynched. In addition to saying that supporters of equality should be killed.

 So there could be a few reasons for his demonstrably false comment.

1. He is incompetent, and has not followed the news, he did not check up on the facts before being interviewed. 

2.  He is aware of all this homophobic behavior but has such a low opinion of LGBT Australians that he doesn't consider any of this misinformation, threats of violence or vilification to be  insulting.

3. He is not being incompetent, he is putting his homophobia aside and he is choosing to lie the he Australian people.

 

 I don't think any of these possibility's are ideal for anyone holding a political position. We should expect more competence, respect and honesty from the leader of a political parry. That he is the deputy prime minister of Australia should be a concern to all decent Australians. He should apologise and resign immediately.

 Malcolm Turnbull who is also for the homophobic plebiscite but has falsely claimed the "debate" on equal rights would be civil and respectful. Mr. Turnbull has so far ignored all the hate speech and misinformation being spread by the anti-marriage homophobes. He has taken no action against those from within his party that re spreading this hate speech, even before the public funded gay vilification program officially begins.  

 Despite the fact that he has also said that Australia has no place for homophobia and that homophobia would not be tolerated in Australia, he has yet to stand up to the radical right in defense of Australians.
 Mr.Turnbull may be in a difficult position one one hand his party demands that they keep an election promise for once and vote on equality before the end of 2016, while on the other hand radical bigots within his party refuse to vote on marriage equality without the horrific plebiscite.
 At this stage it seems he ether needs to stand up to the rot within his party and vote for real marriage equality before the end of the year as promised or he needs to declare he has lost faith in his party's ability to govern and hand over the government. I am not sure how that would work in or system but he cant continue to do nothing.

 

Breaking News: Did Hanson say something factual?

Hanson was sort of right, but for the wrong reasons.

 Pauline Hanson of the racist OneNation* party has declared that she still doesn’t support equal rights for LGBT Australians, because she mistakenly thinks that giving gay people equal rights would somehow take rights away from her. This of course nonsense and matches her usual uniformed opinion. 

 Its like she has her "whites" only beach where she swims, and there is infinite room, but she doesn't want any "non-whites" on the beach because she thinks it would somehow take away her ability to beach, or redefine what swimming was or something. Its sometimes really difficult to understand this kind of stupid.

Or

 It like if she stole a recipe for pancakes from a Pagan group and shared it with all her Christian friends. But then when the Pagans asked her for a copy she refused saying that doing so would be taking pancakes away from her and would lessen her pancake experience.

OR

 Its actually exactly like she has the rights to do something that other Australians have had taken away from them through no fault of there own. And she doesn't want them to have the same rights as her because, because i cant even think of a legitimate reason. She has said she is against same-sex people marrying because she doesn't personally need to marry someone of the same sex, but that cant be it really can it? Is she really just petty, selfish and cruel?

 Does she think same-sex marriage would be compulsory? Does she think opposite sex marriages would be annulled? Does she believe that couples will be magically sex changed so they would no longer be in opposite sex marriages? 
 Please Pauline become informed before you speak, there are gullible people who believe what you say at face value. I doubt she even consulted one LGBT group before spouting this nonsense.

 When confronted with the documented fact, proven by professionals that the kind of hate speech allowed by a plebiscite on human rights would be damaging to the LGBT community she said, "i don't agree with that". 
 She really thinks that her uniformed opinion is more important and accurate than actual qualified professional studies.
 I knew she was ignorant but this is willfully so. She has the facts presented to her and just says no, as if she can alter the fabric of reality with her obnoxious rebuttal. Well i suppose that fits in well with the other conspiracy theories of OneNation* members. Who voted for this kind of anti-intellectualism?

 She also supports the homophobic plebiscite that even if it passed and all that, wouldn’t give equality to LGBT Australians as the LIB/Nats will put in legislation allowing same-sex couples to be legally discriminated against, that’s not equal rights.

 She went on, and I kid you not, she went on to say that if LGBT Australians don’t like not having equal rights they should leave Australia. 
 Is that her solution for everything, does she have shares in passenger liners or something?
 I suppose we can get on the same boat as the Asians, Muslims and Aboriginals, oh that’s right it cant be a boat, boats are still bad right?. Does OneNation* believe in the science of aerodynamics? I have my doubts as OneNation* is so anti-science and anti-facts. 
 It is so ironic that despite the fact that OneNation* supporters want to change our constitution and don't like Australians freedoms and rights, and want to change these things. It is them who say "Australia, love it or leave!" They fail to acknowledge how hypocritical this is. I prefer to love what is right with Australia, and work towards changing those that are not, to make Australia better for everyone. If anyone needs to leave, can it be the racists, and bigots, please?
 The amount of exceptions to the One Nation she wants to create grows more every day.

 She was sort of right when she said that Australia should stop listening to minority's. But she was right only in that Australia needs to stop listening to OneNation*, as they only got less then 5% of the vote they are a very vocal minority indeed. 

 But she is wrong because the reason we should stop listening to OneNation* isn't because they are a minority, it is because they spout ignorant, uniformed, bigoted nonsense.

 However she did say she would vote yes on equal rights if the plebiscite result was yes, so hey she is right in doing that. I just hope if it comes to that, that it hasn't cost too many LGBT lives.

 But before you start checking the ancient texts to see if Hanson being right is a sign of the apocalypse, her reasoning is still wrong.  
  She shouldn't vote for marriage equality because a popular vote said it was popular (and polls already show that by the way), no she should be fighting for equality, because it is the right thing to do.

* OneNation may exclude entry due to ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality.

Sources:
Pauline Hanson homophobia  
Pauline Hanson still homophobic

Breaking News: Turnbull has an opportunity to do the right thing.

Turnbull has an opportunity to do the right thing.

 As i am sure everyone is aware Turnbull has inherited Abbots homophobic plebiscite on equality. The policy delays marriage equality vote in Parliament until after a non-binding public vote. Even then we have seen that the promise to have this vote before the end of the year has been dropped. Despite the only reason the Lib/Nats can give for risking LGBT lives in this way is that it was an election promise. We know from there track record that the LIb/Nats don't actually care about keeping election promises.

 Most political commentators agree that Turnbull made a deal with the radical right of his party for the leadership after Abbots behavior became too bizarre to ignore. This deal with the devil seems to have included delaying marriage equality in Australia. 

 It should also be noted that the Lib/Nats plan for marriage equality would not give true equality to LGBT Australians. The documents show that anyone would be free to discriminate against gay people and pretend they were not in fact married. That is not equality,

So to sum all that up the Lib/Nat plan would:

It is no going to happen this year.
It is unnecessary.
It will be a hugely expensive waste of money.
It will provide funds for the hate groups to force channels to spread hate speech and vilify the LGBT community. 
It will provide funds for the hate groups to spread misinformation about the LGBT community.
It will include having a plebiscite that would not be binding.
Politicians have already said they will not abide by the plebiscite decision f it was for equality. 
Marriage equality would still then have to pass through Parliament at some unspecified date in the future.
True marriage equality would not be achieved because same-sex marriages would be subject to legal sanctioned discrimination.
It could cost lives.

 Turnbull has said that he believes the "debate" would be polite and civil. He has said that Australia has no place for homophobia. He has said homophobia wouldn't be tolerated in Australia. However he has failed to act when instances of homophobia have occurred. 

But the far-right within his party have done him a favor. They have proved him wrong. Before the official "debate" even started. They have released flyers that are misleading, inaccurate, and homophobic, they are in no way civil. 

 These disgusting flyers try to use Nelson Mandela in an attack on LGBT families and their children, which the Mandela foundation has declared was unauthorized and does not align with Nelson Mandalas views as he stood against homophobia. The flyers also attacked a school anti-bullying program and pretended that it was somehow linked to Australia's marriage laws.

A right wing newspaper that has previously printed racist comic in reaction to Aboriginal youth being tortured has now published a homophobic and anti-Semitic comic by the same "artist" that equates marriage equality with Nazis. As anyone with a passing knowledge of history or access to the internet should know, homosexual men were persecuted and killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
 It gets worse as the ACL hate group have made similar claims before, and it is all over the internet how disrespectful and inaccurate that was. I doubt the artist or the editors could have missed seeing this and how vicious this comic would be. Interestingly this my actually be covered under Australians anti-hate speech laws as it attacks not just gays but also gay Jews.

 This has given Turnbull an opportunity to announce with great disappointment that he was wrong and that the far-right can obviously not behave civilly, and so have proven they cant be given public funds to spread such dangerous lies. He can declare that they have forced his hand and that the plebiscite is off, he can then immediately vote in Parliament for true marriage equality. He can easily use the comic and the disgusting flyers as justification that overrides any promises he may have made behind closed doors. His first priority must be to the Australian people after all.

 At the very least he can concede that all material on the anti-marriage side must be fact checked, and that any applicantsfor the funding will have a background check, and any uncivil, untrue or discriminatory past conduct against the LGBT community will eliminate them from the process.

 The attack on LGBT Australians and their family's is so vile Turnbull could even use it as a legitimate reason to strengthen the laws protecting LGBT Australians from hate speech and discrimination.

Hate speech flyers

Review: Closets are for Clothes

Closets are for Clothes

A history of queer Australia 

 

Author:                               Rachel Cook

Publisher:                           Black Dog Books

Type:                                    Soft Cover

Pages:                                   147

Genre:                                  non-fiction

Published:                            2010

ISBN:                                   9781742031040

 The book itself is well made. I did notice a few (only two) errors however these were seen in extracts from letters and diary, so they may have been included to retain authenticity. As mentioned the book has many accounts of the history of Australia from those who lived it, sadly there are only a few black and white photos within the book.

 Pages from book

 This book is an exploration of LGBT life in Australia from "colonization" onward. It is a pity that there is no information within about LGBT life before invasion. Though i have a feeling that this is because such information is difficult to access if it even still exists at all, and not necessarily a whim of the author. Lets take a quick look thorough with some commentary on what i thought were some of the highlights.

 The book begins with some praise by notables including The Honorable Michael Kirby and nice introduction
 Chapter One deals with the first non-native Australians, the convicts. We see lesbian marriages taking place way back in 1792, now that's traditional. We learn that sodomy (oral or anal sex) was punishable by death or transportation (to Australia), though it is noted that only gay men were prosecuted for sodomy. This must mean that a considerable number of early white Australians were indeed gay, indeed there is much evidence of homosexual couples living as married in the colony's. The homosexuality was so prevalent (and distasteful to snobbish British eyes) that it brought about the first calls for an end to transportation.

 Chapter Two we learn that gay men also came to Australia as free settlers seeking a better life away from the prying eyes of family and harsh judgement of the law. We take a look at some gay bushrangers, as well as early works on the fact homosexuality was a natural part of human sexuality.

 Chapter Three We hear a lot of the 1950's fear of the other, and it is sad how much these sentiments mimic the hate spewed forth by racists and homophobes today. You may be forgiven if you think the author was in error and accidentally published pages from the One Nation website in the wrong section, but no 1950's bigots and 2016 bigots are just playing to the same darker aspects of humanity.

 Chapter Four looks at life after World War Two.

 Chapter Five examines the sham that is aversion therapy as well as the treatment of homosexuality as an illness and its failure. Because even then they knew the problem wasn't homosexuality it was homophobia.

 Chapter Six shines a light on a dark era of Australian history with the targeted harassment, and entrapment of Gay men by government forces. It is also incredible to think that we were once so barbaric as to have made it illegal to have been born a 
homosexual male. It is amazing how humans thought they were above the laws of nature.

 Chapter Seven deals with the 60's and 70's with topics ranging from the white Australia policy, the Kinsey report, the burgeoning gay rights movement, and the forming of what would become the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

 Chapter Eight takes a look at feminism, and AIDS. It is interesting to note that despite the vilification and hate of the disgusting Fred Niles (and his ilk) the LGBT community helped Australia become a world leader in dealing with the AIDS crisis.

 Chapter Nine shows us some gay people becoming famous and some LGBT characters appearing on television. It looks at inclusiveness, transgender issues, adoption, IVF, and the fight for equal rights. As well as the horrible act of John Howard changing the marriage act, in order to nullify existing LGBT marriages and prevent more, he did this disgusting thing without a plebiscite mind you. We also see that about 70% of homophobic bullying experienced by young Australians happens at school, which shows again how important initiatives like the Safe Schools anti-bullying program really are and how immoral it would be to oppose them.


The book ends with an extensive glossary, timeline, index and ample references. 

I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in Australian history, law, civil rights and LGBT issues. It is easy to read and should be in every school library history section. The book really needs an updated edition but is still a good reference from 2010 and back.

Also check out The Sex Lives of Australians for more on this topic.