Tag Archives: Law

Same-Sex Marriage in Australia: Boarding the Train of Equality

The luxury of having an online information highway available at our fingertips means that Gen Y has the ability to cross-reference any asserted fact without having to take one’s word as gospel. Unlike our predecessors, our reasoning is not confined to words of our teachers, parents, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Our reasoning is borderless, and when we bear witness to advancements in international human rights, such as the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage in New York, our desire for local justice and equality is amplified.

It is simply unacceptable that within the 21st Century, Australian black letter law continues to instil homophobic ideals by denying lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (‘LGBT’) Australians the right to legitimise their love for one another within the institution of marriage. According to s 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), marriage is defined as the ‘union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. Nevertheless, 12 pioneering countries have sparked a global revolution to stand up for equality over bigotry by legalising same-sex marriage, and as stated by the Hon. Michael Kirby in the 2010 TEDx Sydney lectures, Australia finally has the opportunity of ‘getting rid of the injustice and humiliation of the past’.  

The Sanctity of Marriage:

Guarding the sanctity of marriage has long been the primary justification for discrimination by religious and conservative sects. However, as stated by New York Senator Diane Savino, we must ask, ‘what are we really protecting? If there is any threat to the sanctity of marriage, it comes from those of us who have the privilege and the right to marry. One only needs to observe our burgeoning divorce rates, as well as reality television shows like The Bachelor or The Bachelorette to concede that heterosexual couples have been undermining this ‘sanctity’ for decades.

In any case, legalising same-sex marriage does not mean that religious institutions will be compelled to wed same-sex couples. Religious groups can continue to practice discrimination with respect to the sacrament of marriage, but cannot hypocritically request tolerance towards religious beliefs whilst preaching religious intolerance.

It is not the legislative function of parliament to determine the quality and validity of society’s loving relationships. If it were, parliament would certainly not issue most of the marriage licences it has already issued. Rather, as stressed by Justice Kirby, legislators must ‘stand up for the separation of the Church and the State’. Secular governance fundamentally ensures the protection of our right to believe in any religion, as well as the right to abstain from religion. ‘Secularism is a protection for spirituality, and only by secularism will we maintain the respect for every belief’. Thus, when the line of secular governance is blurred by the denial of same-sex marriage, this also paradoxically represents a parliamentary denial of one’s right to practice religion.

Civil Relationships:

Another argument often employed to deny marriage equality is the availability of civil relationship registers. Prime Minister Julia Gillard maintains that when such registers are combined with the 85 legislative amendments introduced to fields such as social welfare and superannuation, substantive rights and entitlements between LGBT couples are virtually aligned with married couples.

The problem is that no matter how magnanimous the government feels about such reforms, it fails to recognise the underlining symbolic difference of treating same-sex relationships as subordinate to that of marriage. The government must understand that marriage equality is not only about rights and entitlements, but also about equality of status. As stated by Justice Kirby, ‘we’re not talking about marriage with confetti, we’re talking about a register; like registering your dog! That’s what it is. It’s a second-class status of citizenship’.

It is the second-class treatment of LGBT relationships that legitimises societal homophobia, which in turn has a profound and insidious impact on the health of our LGBT population. For example, Suicide Prevention Australia found that LGBT teenagers are currently 14 times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers.

LGBT Parenting:

Many religious and conservative groups naively proclaim that LGBT parenting is a danger to the psychological wellbeing of children. There is now a large cohort of children with LGBT parents who are old enough to paint an accurate portrait about the effects of LGBT parenting. Dr Goldberg, author of Lesbian and Gay Parents and their Children, concluded that children of LGBT parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. That is, children show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorder, are just as popular at school, and have just as many friends. They are not likely to suffer from supposed gender confusion, nor are they more likely to identify themselves as LGBT. The simple answer, says Dr Goldberg, is that ‘the children do just fine’.

In fact Dr Goldberg’s studies uncovered that heterosexual parents could learn parenting lessons from their LGBT counterparts after concluding that children of LGBT parents were more likely to look beyond societal stereotypes, accept differences, and move away from traditional gender roles and assumptions. For example, it was found that daughters of lesbian mothers were more likely to aspire for professions traditionally considered for males, such as doctors or lawyers. Whereas daughters of heterosexual couples were more likely to aspire for more feminine professions such as nursing and teaching.

The Positive Outlook:

Data collected by the 2010 Galaxy Poll indicates that the acceptance of same-sex marriage within Australian society is indeed inevitable. That is, marriage equality has unequivocally turned to the question of ‘when’, rather than the question of ‘if’. Statistics indicate that 62 per cent of all Australians, and a staggering 74 per cent of Labor voters support same-sex marriage. It is therefore unsurprising that opinion polls reveal Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s satisfaction rating at a record low amongst Labor voters.

What is more disappointing than the opinion polls is the sad indictment of the lesbian Labor Senator Penny Wong, who continues to sell out the LGBT community with her support of Labor’s political line of banning same-sex marriage. Senator Wong’s standing is even more repugnant when it is compared to that of a heterosexual Republican Senator Roy Macdonald, who was one of four Republican’s to join the majority in voting for same-sex marriage in New York. Senator Macdonald believed that he had a moral obligation to turn his back on the Republican Party, and in addressing his voters he stated:

‘You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black or white, good or bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that… [but] I don’t care what you think; I’m trying to do the right thing. I’m tired of Republican/Democratic politics…’

The Labor Party will be revisiting its policy on same-sex marriage at its National Conference in December 2011. It is our duty to make our voices heard and to make democracy prevail. We must join the rest of the world in doing away with homophobic ideals. The train for equality is boarding, and if the Australian government wants to recover the confidence of its voters, it must not delay. It is time to jump on board!

Dedicated to my dear friend Casey B. May love always prevail. 

Ali Besiroglu

Leave a Comment

Filed under Justice

‘Get a Fire in Your Belly’ for Indigenous Rights!

‘Get a fire in your belly’ was Jill Prior’s powerful message from the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service when she recently provided a moving presentation at the Progressive Law Network’s Legal (r)Evolution conference. It has been 20 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody made its 339 recommendations to essentially jam the revolving doors of our criminal justice system. Nevertheless, two decades of collated statistical data continues to indicate a single unsettling narrative; Indigenous disadvantage is notoriously entrenched in Australian society.

Since British settlement, there is no denying that by locking out Indigenous involvement from the development of policies and laws, and the subsequent locking up of Indigenous people in our prisons, our criminal justice system has played and continues to play a significant role in locking in repressive outcomes.

Current national statistics indicate that Indigenous people are 14 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous people.[1] Between 2000 and 2008 the imprisonment rate for Indigenous women increased by 45 per cent, and by 26.6 per cent for Indigenous men.[2] The Victorian Indigenous population is currently 11.2 times more likely to be placed in adult and juvenile prisons than non-Indigenous Victorians.[3] Nationwide, Aboriginal deaths in custody occur at a disturbing rate. For example 28 per cent of the 54 deaths in custody in 2005 involved Indigenous detainees.[4]

The problem with quantitative data is that it reduces real life stories into mere numerical conclusions. Ms Prior endeavours to elucidate these statistics by sharing two unsavoury stories which ‘people don’t want to hear’. Her stories are an ‘abomination’ because they not only serve as a snapshot of Indigenous disadvantage, but serve as a mirror reflecting our inhumanity. Indeed, as stated by Justice Betty King from the Supreme Court of Victoria, ‘As a community, we should hang our heads in shame’.[5]

I implore everyone to share the videos below, ‘take an understanding, and get a fire in your belly’ for Indigenous rights!

Ali Besiroglu

Warning: These videos contain the names of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are now deceased and may cause distress to some viewers.

Watch all the speakers from the Indigenous Legal (r)Evolution conference by clicking here.


[1] Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 20 Years On: NATSILS Call For A Fair Go, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services Forum 2011, <online> at 14 May 2011.
[2] Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (2009), <online> at 14 May 2011.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Chris Cuneen, ‘Reflections on Criminal Justice Policy Since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody’ (2008) <online> at 14 May 2011.
[5] R v Kulla Kulla [2010] VSC 60 (9 April 2010) at [51].

3 Comments

Filed under Justice

Workplace Bullying: The Impact of Brodie’s Law on Employers

Brodie Panlock was a 19 year old waitress who tragically ended her life after being subjected to ‘persistent and vicious’ workplace bullying at café Vamp in Hawthorn, Victoria.[1] A coronial inquest found that Brodie’s young age, low self-esteem, and inexperience combined to make her ‘emotionally vulnerable’, and it was this vulnerability that was callously exploited by four older colleagues. In February 2010 all men pleaded guilty and were fined under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic).[2] Even though the criminal prosecution was the first of its kind in Australia, outside the court, Brodie’s family demanded the law be changed to include a custodial sentence.

Workplace bullying is so endemic in Victoria that a 2010 survey into the public sector alarmingly revealed that one in five public servants had experienced bullying at work.[3] Combine this figure with the disturbing outcome of Brodie’s case and one can begin to appreciate why the Victorian government has moved to introduce the desperately needed Crimes Amendment (Bullying) Bill 2011 (Vic). The Bill has been nicknamed ‘Brodie’s Law’, and according to Attorney-General Robert Clark it proposes to ‘send the strong signal to would-be offenders that the government will not tolerate bullying behaviour’.[4]

Scope of Brodie’s Law:

Instead of introducing a new crime against workplace bullying, Brodie’s Law expands the existing offence of stalking under s 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) which carries a maximum jail term of 10 years. The problem with Brodie’s Law is that even though it affords protection from ‘employees’ engaging in bullying conduct, it appears that the amendments alone cannot hold ‘employers’ criminally accountable. The amendment to s 21(2)(g) states that stalking includes ‘acting in any other way that could reasonably be expected to cause physical, mental, or self harm’. However, I believe that the use of the word ‘acting’ actually requires the employer to engage in a positive act rather than simply refraining from acting. In other words, Brodie’s Law punishes positive acts of bullying but does not punish employers who do not take action against the bullying conduct. Otherwise s 21(2)(g) would have read:

‘acting [or omitting to act] in any other way that could reasonably be expected to cause physical, mental, or self harm’. 

Whether this is a legislative oversight or not, it contradicts Magistrate Peter Lauristen’s sentence in Brodie’s case where His Honour reserved the second heaviest sanction of $30,000 for Brodie’s employer Marc Da Cruz.

Seeking Accountability Beyond Brodie’s Law:

If the Bill is passed without amendments, it appears prosecutors will have to look beyond the bounds of Brodie’s Law to establish criminal liability against employers. The law of derivative liability stipulates that a person who ‘aids’ a principal offender may himself or herself become a principal offender.[5] Prosecutors could rely on this provision to argue that when an employer fails to take action against bullying conduct, he or she in fact ‘aids’ the principal bully and must therefore be necessarily charged as a principal offender.

R v Russell (1933) VLR 59 consisted of an analogous circumstance whereby a defendant husband stood by and watched his wife drown their three children and then herself in a public pool after an argument. The defendant was convicted of three counts of manslaughter as a principal offender even though he did not drown the kids himself. In dismissing his appeal Cussen ACJ stated (at 66):

‘I am of the opinion (1) that if a person present at the commission of a crime in the opinion of the jury on sufficient evidence shows his assent to such a commission, he is guilty as a principal, and (2) that assent may in some cases be properly found by the jury to be shown by the absence of dissent, or in the absence of what may be called an effective dissent’.

Therefore, when an employer does not provide an ‘effective dissent’ to the bullying conduct, this Victorian case law highlights that he or she can indeed be criminally accountable for not taking action. Especially where the victims are owed a duty of care such as in parent/child or employer/employee relationships.

The problem with forcing prosecutors down the path of derivative liability is that a derivative criminal action cannot be instigated against an employer unless the prosecution is able to firstly prove the initial charge of stalking against the principal offender.[6] In other words, an employer cannot be charged with a crime unless the bully is firstly convicted of an offence. Thus justice will be denied to a victim in a situation where the principal bully is found innocent due to some legal technicality, as the employer will walk free of stalking liability too. This would certainly not be the case if Brodie’s Law was amended to include the words ‘acting or omitting to act’ in s 21(2)(g), as both parties could be tried independently as principal offenders.

Ali Besiroglu
Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 131114, or SANE Helpline on 1800 187263.

[1] Steve Butcher, ‘Brodies Torment’, The Age, 11 December 2009,  <online> at 27 April 2011.
[2] ‘Men Who Tormented Suicide Waitress Brodie Panlock Fined’, AAP: <online> at 27 April 2001.
[3] ‘Trends in Bullying in the Victorian Public Sector: People Matter Survey 2004-2010’, Victoria State Service Authority (2011), <online> at 27 April 2011.
[4] Parliament of Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 6 April 2011, 1019 (Attorney General Robert Clark, Attorney General), <online> at 27 April 2011.
[5] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 323.
[6] Jonathan Clough & Carmel Mulhern, ‘Criminal Law’ (2nd ed, 2004) 280.  See also R v See Lun and Welsh (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 363 at 365.

5 Comments

Filed under Justice