Today's post is in response to a (potentially) tricky question that the Political Umpire threw me in the comments section of yesterday's photo. The Ump was after my view on a story that has had national focus here in Australia over the past few days, titled: "No room for gay developer in Penguin's property parade"
There are two parts to this question that in my mind should easily be separated. However, it is worth noting that anti-development sensibilities and homophobic tendencies both have a lengthy history in Tasmania.
On the question of development on the North West Coast, I am broadly supportive. Anyone willing to invest (potentially) millions of dollars that stands to create new jobs, attract new people, and help offer viable pathways for residents is welcome in my book. Context (as ever), is vital. When I left the coast in early 1996, spirits could not have been much lower. Global economic circumstances and the subsequent shift away from heavy industry saw unemployment soar, with the concomitant rise in alcohol and drug misuse, suicide rates, family breakdown and so on. Moreover, despite offering some of the most stunning scenery in Australia, an attractive climate, closer proximity to the Melbourne/Sydney markets than Hobart, things were not looking good. Career options (and ongoing job progression) were so scarce that for me, leaving was not really a choice, as much as a necessity.
That said, the idea of 'Tasmania's Noosa' does make me cringe a little, as images of high rises on the beach and over-development more generally are not very pleasant to my mind. That notwithstanding, I have always believed that you have to enter these arrangements at least willing to talk (and listen) with an open mind. Very much what Habermas would call "communicative action" (I knew that Honours thesis would come in handy one day!)
Thus, I have no time whatsoever for the knee jerk NIMBY attitudes of many of my fellow Tasmanians – of all political stripes – that needlessly and pre-emptively stifle investment in areas that are ripe for investment yet have a narrow range of options. It does depress me that in this case, the anti-development crowd and the homophobic crowd have been lumped in together, which has done nothing to promote open and respectful discourse, and made coming to any sort of agreement even more difficult than it need be.
The second part of Ump's comment concerned the issue of Tasmania and gay law reform. The Ump is of course correct that Tasmania was the last state is Tasmania to decriminalise all private consenting adult homosexual activity. It should go without saying that those laws were a relic of an unenlightened time and a blight on our statutes, and should have been done away with long before they were, but just it case it did need saying, I've said it!
For mine, it demonstrated above anything else the troubling ability of powerful (and vocal) minorities to maintain positions of inequality to those they do not approve of. That is not to claim that homophobia was not broadly present (or even prevalent), because it was (and remains so in some areas). Despite this though, most people in my experience were uncomfortable with such laws being present in an 'advanced' nation at the end of the twentieth century. Bear in mind that I grew up in Burnie, smack bang in the middle of the North West coast where such feelings of homophobia were supposedly most keenly felt. I do feel that 'ignorance' and 'homophobia' are different things though, and have known far more 'ignorant' people than 'homophobic' people. In my mind, 'homophobic' implies some sort of active dislike rather than lack of awareness. I hope that this is making sense!
A handy timeline of the reform movement can be found on the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group site. I would like to think (and do think) that Tassie has come a long way in the ten years since the achievement of law reform. It is worth noting that by Australian (and global) standards; Tasmania – along with South Australia and the ACT – now leads the way in treating all citizens, regardless of their sexual preference, equally under the law.
Both the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 and the Relationship Act 2003 really do lead the Commonwealth in respect and recognition of gay rights. Dare I say it, Wikipedia have a decent little entry on the legal notion of domestic partnerships in Tasmania as is stands today situated in broader context.
I am slightly saddened to see the mainstream media embrace the simplistic "run out of town" line (as demonstrated by The Age article's title), when Stephen Roche himself is quoted as saying "most people in Penguin were extremely supportive" and his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the hate campaign. Indeed, Roche went on to say in the same article: "I don't feel as though I've been pushed out at all. It's a very small minority that have had any sort of homophobic prejudice." My reading of it through the local paper (The Advocate) has seen overwhelming condemnation of those who resorted to homophobic argument.
Perhaps Tasmania's most widely admired rights advocate, Rodney Croome (who grew up just down the road from Penguin in Ulverstone) wrote a good piece on the topic on his blog shortly after the offensive material was distributed in Penguin, and reflects far more eloquently on Tasmania, the NW Coast and gay rights than I ever could. It is well worth a read for those interested.
So Ump, I hope that this is the response that you were after!
[Belated update: I've just read Rodney Croome's latest post on the whole imbroglio, and would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Like the previous post I linked to, this one is well worth a read and comes from someone who knows a hell of a lot more than I ever will about the position of GLBT Tasmanians in 2008.]
Comments