A NEW REPORT on Australian homophobia contains a few surprises.
Tasmania has the best lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights laws in Australia. It has the best anti-homophobia policies in education, health, tourism and policing.
In a globally-unprecedented move it has government-endorsed benchmarks for the elimination of homophobic prejudice and violence.
According to large-scale opinion polls, support for LGBT human rights has increased dramatically over the past 15 years to levels above the mainland states (for a closer look at some of these polls see the link below. Subsequent polling showed support for anti-discrimination and relationship law reform as high as 65 and 70%).
The island’s anti-gay movement, once the nation’s most powerful, has evaporated.
But according to the Australia Institute, Tasmania remains Australia’s most homophobic state.
The AI’s survey of Australian homophobia, released yesterday in its report, “Mapping Homophobia”, shows that 40% of Tasmanians believe homosexuality is immoral, and homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, a figure slightly ahead of second placed Queensland, and well ahead of the other states.
Tasmania’s North West Coast was found to be one of the country’s most homophobic regions with almost 50% of respondents believing homosexuality is immoral and homosexual adoption wrong.
Amongst Tasmanian community leaders the report has been met with incredulity. State Attorney-General, Judy Jackson, said “I find it hard to believe this is true”.
Over the next few days she and many others will look for explanations for the apparent inconsistency, for the gap between laws and policies, opinion polls and the AI survey.
Sadly, sample size and methodology aren’t factors.
The highly respected polling company Roy Morgan conducted the survey. There was a whopping 3,375 respondents from Tasmania.
One way to explain the survey results is that legal and policy change has been very rapid in Tasmania and community attitudes have yet to catch up.
It was only eight years ago that gay sex could land you in gaol for 21 years.
But I’m not happy with this take. It doesn’t explain what Tasmanians across the political spectrum and across the state have been observing for a decade past; that hearts and mind have been changing as well as laws.
Profound change
An explanation that makes more sense is that we came from a really low base and profound change may take decades.
It’s certainly true that the polls showed abysmal levels of support for gay law reform 15 years ago, and there can be no doubt that Tasmania’s anti-gay prejudice has roots deep in our colonial history.
Perhaps I and others have been dazzled by changes, not only to upper level laws and policies, but to upper level attitudes.
Below a new sense of tolerance there may well lie a powerful residual discomfort.
Finally, there’s the explanation that most people will not want to consider: that what we are seeing is not intractable, low-lying, residual prejudice but something much newer and more dangerous.
Evangelical and fundamentalist church leaders have made inroads into outer urban and regional communities across the country, but in Tasmania those inroads have been deeper thanks to the tight-knit nature of Tasmanian society.
It’s the same inter-connectedness that benefited the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community when its representatives took to the road in the 1990s and first years of the 21st century, to foster support for their human rights amongst their heterosexual compatriots.
The fundamentalists are following the path beaten by LGBT people into the hearts and minds of ordinary Tasmanians, but their goal is a very different one.
Their sudden growth is obvious if you compare their failure to stop the Relationships Act in the state Upper House in 2003 to their derailing of sex industry reform in the same chamber last month.
Fickle pendulum
In two short years they have reversed the political trajectory of the Legislative Council, and presumably the constituents Councillors listen to.
If it’s true that the fickle pendulum of Tasmanian public opinion is already swinging back from its gay high, the choice is clear — either we allow ourselves to again be labelled “the gay-hate state”, and “Bigot’s Island”, or we dedicate ourselves even more earnestly to the cause of social inclusion.
If the choice is inclusion, the question is how?
Whatever the cause of Tasmania’s homophobia, clearly our ground-breaking laws and policies are not enough to curb it.
Government must back up its laws, policies and benchmarks with adequate funding to ensure they are implemented properly.
Political, civic and religious leaders must openly stamp efforts to reduce prejudice and discrimination with their authority and credibility.
Heterosexual Tasmanians must take responsibility for tackling a prejudice that hurts not only LGBT people but their families, friends, colleagues and communities.
LGBT people must take responsibility for re-engaging with their fellow Tasmanians in a way many of us thought was no longer necessary.
The state must face up to, and debate, new important reforms like same-sex marriage instead of resting on our now slightly faded law reform laurels.
For decades, homophobic prejudice fostered horrific abuse, violence and state-repression in Tasmania. It drove young people away, or into drug abuse or to suicide. It tore families and communities apart.
It gnawed away at Tasmania’s prosperity, its future and its heart.
We can’t let that happen again.
For a copy of the Australia Institute report click,
Here
For a copy of other surveys on Tasmanian attitudes to homosexuality click,
Here
And,
Well beyond the Australian Institute’s findings on homophobia in Tasmania, there are other AI findings which will cause great surprise.
Catholics are the least homophobic Christians, inner Perth is the second least homophobic region overall after inner Melbourne, the Hunter Valley is less homophobic than Sydney, 14 to17 year olds are more homophobic than 18 to 24 year olds, who are more homophobic than 25 to 34 year olds.
Clearly the views of church hierarchs are strategically ignored by Catholics.
Given that the churches line up on homophobia according to their levels of hierarchy (Catholics are less homophobic than Anglicans who score better than other protestant denominations with Baptists last), perhaps participating in a highly structured church is somehow good for one’s social conscience (if only as something to react against).
Clearly Sydney is not the gay-capital many believe it to be. The inner city may not be far behind leaders, Melbourne and Perth, but the outer suburbs drag it way down.
Clearly teenagers have a problem with prejudice. The AI researchers speculate that adolescents are more likely than young adults to be homophobic because of sexual and gender insecurity and peer pressure.
The Howard Generation
Possibly, or maybe they’re the Howard Generation?
The one thing that doesn’t surprise me is the unexpected way the states line up.
Tasmania, Queensland, WA and NSW all rate above SA and Victoria.
If being small or isolated determines your place on the list why is NSW above SA?
My answer is that the fundamental influence on homophobia in this country is a convict past, and all the enduring associations between homosexuality, crime, subversion and shame that brings.
I’m not the first to make the connection. Robert Hughes, Richard Flanagan and others have made it before me.
I’m simply embellishing their thesis by noting that the four least tolerant states have a carcerial history. The two most tolerant, don’t.
Last, to the most important stat of all. 35% of Australians think homosexuality is immoral and homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
35% is far too large to represent all those Australians with an ideologically-based antipathy to homosexuality.
It is mostly people who have simply never been faced with the truth of sexual diversity.
Beyond everything else, the AI survey is a clarion call to the LGBT community to reach out to these Australians, to show them who we are and why we matter, to convince them that sexual orientation has no bearing on morality and parenting ability, and to bring them to an appreciation of the fundamental importance of social and sexual diversity.
All about Rodney Croome,
Here
Jarrod Sharp
July 27, 2005 at 04:35
I find shoplifting immoral, am I kleptophobic?
Luke
July 27, 2005 at 05:26
I reckon most Tasmanians are, like me, enormously proud of the gigantic steps we have taken as a community over the past few years in embracing a more enlightened, tolerant and compassionate approach to the many minority groups in our State.
The former ‘red-neck capital of Australia’ has embraced this country’s most progressive anti-discrimination laws, the best relationship-laws to protect the rights of same-sex couples and of course, important land-handback to our indigenous community.
My ‘New Tasmania’ is place I want to proudly show-off to the world as one of the true socially-progressive and tolerant communities on this planet, not the place so portrayed by the stories on the front pages of today’s newspapers.
Cheers
Luke M
Prince of Darkness
July 27, 2005 at 08:06
I wholeheartedly support Joseph-Antoine’s comment. The survey asks agreement or disagreement with the statement “I believe that homosexuality is immoral”. Extrapolating homophobia from that answer is far fetched. The homophobia definition used by the study is:
“Homophobia refers to the unreasoning fear or hatred of homosexuals and to antihomosexual beliefs and prejudices.2 It is based on the belief that heterosexuality is normal and natural and that homosexuality is unnatural, sick or dangerous.”
On terms of many religious beliefs (for example Christianity and Islam) homosexuality is immoral, which does not necessarily mean that people automatically will discriminate or hate homosexuals.
Further, Rodney’s expectation on laws changing minds is naive. Tasmania’s laws have changed a long way from what they used to be, but it will take two or more generations to overcome old prejudices.
In summary, relax Rodney, change will take time, and the survey is a bit flawed. The situation is improving but areas which are not known for being extremely progressive will take longer to catch up with the expected effects of the law.
POD has several gay and lesbian friends, supports equal rights for LGBT but reads a lot less from the study in question.
Anon
July 27, 2005 at 09:32
As noted elsewhere, it is good to see research into Australian attitudes toward homosexuality. However, this does not mean that we are seeing good research!
The paper notes that equating the belief that homosexuality is immoral with homophobia is not the best approach, but justifies it through the use of a larger sample size (an argument which beggars belief!). This approach also effectively excluded from consideration large sections of the GLBTI cohort who are still subject to homophobic attitudes despite not being homosexual.
It also failed to use control questions (or samples) that could have more accurately identified homophobic attitudes (in particular, questions on adoption could also have considered single parent households, another victim of the “every child deserves a father and a mother” mentality that could also be seen as ‘immoral’).
I thought that The Mercury had done their usual job ‘reporting’ on the study, but after reading the paper myself I’m afraid their summary is (disappointingly) accurate.
Given the lack of baseline data, I think the conclusions reached in the paper were premature (convenient even – especially in relation to the attitudes of younger people), but hopefully this paper (despite its flaws) will serve as a driver for future research that can better reflect the nature of homophobia within Australia.
nudger
July 27, 2005 at 11:27
Stay calm Rodney.
The worst part about this survey is that it has been picked up by the media and Tassie gets a bad press again.
You’re winning in all the places that it counts Rodney, you’ll never get 100 per cent on this, and certainly never in the dark north and north west where men are men and their women learn to be grateful.
You’ve achieved so much my friend, don’t diminish that now by what seemed an almost out of character piece.
You’ve won son. Have a glass of the celebratory stuff. And leave the nutters to drown in their VB, cheeseburgers, gross obesity and heart attacks.
Dr Kevin Bonham
July 27, 2005 at 13:05
I used to consider people homophobic if they displayed hatred towards gay people and/or believed gay sex should be illegal. Then along came a new class of evangelicals who were content with or at least equivocal about the legalisation of gay sex, and showed no specific signs of hatefulness beyond the anti-everything moral cringe that came in the same cereal packet as their religious hectoring, but continued to maintain that homosexuality was “morally wrong”.
Whether such beliefs are really deserving of the label “homophobic” or not is open to debate (they certainly fit the study’s definition of “antihomosexual beliefs”), but such debate misses the point, which is that there is no remotely valid reason for anyone who is neither inordinately stupid nor clinically insane to consider consensual adult gay sex immoral. As such the figures shown in the study are indeed a cause for some disappointment. However, without any previous baseline, any speculation about whether the picture is getting slowly better or whether there has been a turnaround will be exactly that. Even the apparent inconsistency with high support for anti-discrimination laws proves little because it is quite possible for a person to support equal legal rights for gay people and couples while maintaining that homosexuality is morally wrong.
It would be useful to know to what extent belief that homosexuality is immoral correlates with a broader belief in the immorality of all unmarried sex and to what extent it reflects specifically anti-gay attitudes.
Lastly, I strongly share Rodney Croome’s concerns about the twisted and deceitful doctrines of so many modern evangelical Christians on this issue. Just recently I participated in a forum debate (http://www.nakeddwarf.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10806) with an evangelical type who maintained despite all evidence to the contrary that a God who would send people to Hell because of their sexuality was in fact a God of love. This idea of “love” is no more defensible a conception than that employed by pathological stalkers who claim to “love” their victims. H.L. Mencken had it right (and nothing has changed) when he wrote: “Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate…”
Matthew P
July 28, 2005 at 06:08
Rodney you are a sad angry little fellow. Relax. Tasmania is a good place with decent people. The fact that they have moral views should be irrelevant both to you and the wider media. Moral beliefs are just that – they are deeply-held personal convictions that do not necessarily result in the sort of aggression, slander, closed-mindedness and bigotry that you continue to display.
In fact, I would wager that the very people who hold the view that backstabbing is immoral are the very same people who are too damn polite and respectful of others to even defend themselves.
They turn the other cheek. Don’t get too excited mate.
Dr Kevin Bonham
July 28, 2005 at 07:31
If the clearly overexcitable (!) Matthew P can provide a single example of Rodney Croome truly “slandering” anybody in this debate or any other I would be very interested to see it.
I suspect he is just using “slander” as a melodramatic term for “strongly worded disagreement with”. Without knowing anything about Matthew’s views, I will add that such misuse of terms like “slander”, “defamation” and “libel” (to make it sound like any disagreement whatsoever is tantamount to a legal offence) is remarkably common among campaigners from the thin-skinned anti-gay Right.
Prince of Darkness
July 28, 2005 at 07:40
So Gerry/Barnaby,
Are you suggesting that Rodney’s mum had too much “water, or dash in for a hamburger or a piece of fried chicken”? I’m sure that Rodney and other LGBT who are part of the “gay explosion” will be thrilled by your explanation…
Nudger
July 28, 2005 at 08:25
Geoff,
Never was I slagging the North, just merely responding to the thing in Rodney’s piece that indicates that is where the fiercest resistance is.
There are normal people there, fine, upstanding, moral citizens of Tasmania. And according to Rodney’s survey, there are others. That’s what I was alluding too. You have drawn far too long a bow.
The north has much that is good and much that is bad.
The world’s freshest air is at Cape Grim, but the place is also the Coronary Capital of Australia.
I must say that with a lot of Northerners learned, open debate becomes difficult because of a certain thinning of the skin built on the assumption that people in Hobart are out to fleece them at every opportunity.
Most Hobartians are beyond caring. The rivalry, the cheap shots about Oatlands and so on all come from Northerners carrying two centuries of grievances with about as much style as a drunk carrying a beer barrel home from the party because he didn’t want anyone else to have the beer.
Edmund Rouse thought he made Hobartians puke. Rather he made them piss themselves laughing at his insecurities.
So there, nothing I said was anti-North. Have you got it now? Good, now get over it.
John Kloprogge
July 28, 2005 at 15:29
Barnaby,
I still find it very hard to accept your thesis that there are more gays these days because of a different chemical make-up of the environment.
This assumes that only opposite-sex attraction is truly natural (even though most animal species demonstrate homosexuality).
It also assumes that we can accurately measure the number of gays by how many people are “out”. Social circumstances determine whether people come out, and favourable circumstances didn’t exist until the 1960s (at least).
You also mention that the chemical environment makes us act in the same way as the opposite sex. Plenty of gay men act exactly like straight men (except for their sexual behaviour), the same with women.
I also think that you neglect the fact that the incidence of homosexuality is roughly equal across all cultures, except for inner-city areas (and that can be explained by people moving there to find a more accepting environment).
Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are all natural and valid orientations.
Rick Pilkington
July 29, 2005 at 05:06
Nah it’s true.
Us bogans up here in the north have earned the tag.
The fact is, the anti-gay law reform movement of the late 80s and early 90s was driven out of the north, particularly the ‘Bible Belt’ of the North West Coast. Remember TAS ALERT! I think most of the anti-gay organizations which sprung up as a result of the push for gay law reform were coming out of the north.
Some may be too young (and I mean no disrespect in saying so) to remember the anti-gay rallies in Burnie which used to draw hundreds of very prejudiced, angry folks.
From memory there were plenty of other rallies around the north at that time also.
Those of us in the north who were not directly responsible for all this should accept the digs with good humor. We need not be so offended or surprised.
The history is there.
And it is a very recent history.
Genevieve Lloyd
July 29, 2005 at 10:32
Steady on!
Prattling on in a homophobic manner has amounted to some tediously flawed insinuations on this site.
Funny, there was no “fried chicken”, “hamburgers” or “chemically treated water” in my biodynamic Mediterranean based diet when I produced a beautiful, healthy, normal, lesbian daughter!
In fact there were more chemicals in the environment where my equally beautiful, normal, healthy, heterosexual son was born.
If one of them was left-handed and the other right-handed I would view this in the same way as I do their sexual orientation – that is, with acceptance.
PS I cannot thank you enough, Rodney, for your astute, rational and perceptive ongoing fight to overcome (is it possible?) the appalling ignorance we too frequently encounter.
Nudger
August 1, 2005 at 03:37
“Whereas upon moving back up north, when you say you’ve come from Hobart no-one bats an eyelid. ”
Unless you say you’re from Hobart and you’re gay, it seems, which gets us right back on topic!