I’ve been trying to get my head around the link between the proclivities of the LGBTIQ and disaster relief. Lets face it, there isn’t one and the link has been confected as just another front in the culture wars.
This has never been a problem in disaster relief before, so why now? Those at the pointy end of disaster relief are too busy and flat out with stretched resources, getting people to higher ground or otherwise out of harms way to be concerned about the narcissistic, self indulgent focus of a minority and their predilections, gender, race, colour or anything else.
It may come as a surprise but In such circumstances, it’s not all about you.
Most people probably couldn’t identify an LGBTI person in a police line up.
Instead of drawing attention to themselves and attracting the ire of the rest of the community and endeavouring to redefine it, to suit their minority status, why not adopt the maxim of the US military: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Most people couldn’t care less and are simply not interested.
The entire issue of gay marriage hasn’t even been resolved in Australia yet but now, as foreseen by many, the slippery slope putsch that was dismissed in that issue has materialised in attempts to fully redefine community and family. Redefine ‘family’ to include LGBTI people in disaster relief
“….The words “community” and “family” should be redefined within legislation to explicitly reference LGBTI people and challenge “heteronormative assumptions”, according to a prominent government adviser on emergency and disaster management.
Sydney University academic Dale Dominey-Howes, described as a global leader in natural hazards and disaster risk reduction, has argued that a “blindness to difference” in the way LGBTI individuals were treated “the same as everyone else” within disaster management policies and procedures meant that the needs of the LGBTI community were not being adequately addressed.
In a recent research paper published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Associate Professor Dominey-Howes said the lack of any reference to sexual and gender minorities within the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act and its associated plans meant that the specific needs of “already marginalised individuals” were being overlooked.
“We advocate that formal government acts, policies and associated plans … explicitly define concepts such as ‘community’ and ‘family’ to include LGBTI couples and families in order to recognise the complexity and diversity of these terms in order to ensure they are truly inclusive.”
The recommendation comes at a time of increased focus on the experiences and needs of LGBTI people in disasters, with the Victorian government funding research on the topic with a view of developing specific policies and procedures…”
FULL COLUMN BELOW
The words “community” and “family” should be redefined within legislation to explicitly reference LGBTI people and challenge “heteronormative assumptions”, according to a prominent government adviser on emergency and disaster management.
Sydney University academic Dale Dominey-Howes, described as a global leader in natural hazards and disaster risk reduction, has argued that a “blindness to difference” in the way LGBTI individuals were treated “the same as everyone else” within disaster management policies and procedures meant that the needs of the LGBTI community were not being adequately addressed.
In a recent research paper published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Associate Professor Dominey-Howes said the lack of any reference to sexual and gender minorities within the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act and its associated plans meant that the specific needs of “already marginalised individuals” were being overlooked.
While he acknowledged that NSW law and emergency management agencies did not actively discriminate, “a more nuanced reading of the actual situation reveals that LGBTI people and their needs are actually invisible and have not been considered as different or needing of particular consideration”.
“Equal treatment does not equate with identical treatment but should instead seek equity …. to redistribute rights and resources in order to provide a level playing field,” he said.
“We advocate that formal government acts, policies and associated plans … explicitly define concepts such as ‘community’ and ‘family’ to include LGBTI couples and families in order to recognise the complexity and diversity of these terms in order to ensure they are truly inclusive.”
The recommendation comes at a time of increased focus on the experiences and needs of LGBTI people in disasters, with the Victorian government funding research on the topic with a view of developing specific policies and procedures.
New National Gender and Emergency Management Guidelines have called for the LGBTI community to play a greater role in emergency planning, recovery and relief.
Mr Dominey-Howes’ research, which focused specifically on NSW and is part of a broader Australian Research Council-funded study, also canvassed the “problematic” role of Christian faith-based groups in providing disaster relief because of their exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation.
Similar concerns were flagged in the new federally-funded national guidelines, for which Mr Dominey-Howes served as an adviser, which recommend governments reconsider outsourcing disaster relief to third-party faith-based organisations, due to the “consequences” of the exemptions.
The implication that religious charities would discriminate against a person based on their sexuality when providing disaster relief sparked an outcry from charities.
A spokeswoman for NSW Justice said the state government was committed to delivering the same level of disaster response to all residents across the state, including the LGBTI community.
“We have not received any formal complaints about the delivery of recovery services to the LGBTI community in NSW,” the spokeswoman said.
Mr Dominey-Howes said “passive discrimination” occurred when an LGBTI individual chose not to seek official government support “because they fear they may be discriminated against … since they have to liaise with representatives of faith-based Christian institutions that they know have a licence to discriminate”.
He did not respond to The Australian’s request for comment…”