Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts

31 July 2011

Awesome Woman: Faith Bandler

Today's Awesome Woman is FAITH BANDLER, an Australian activist who has lived an iconoclastic life and has been a lifelong civil- and women's-rights leader.

In a review of Marilyn Lake’s biography of Faith Bandler, Faith Bandler, Gentle Activist, Lyndall Ryan writes:

...the subject is full of contradictions. She is not Aboriginal, but as a woman of colour she has devoted most of her adult life to removing legal discrimination against Aboriginal people. She is not a white woman, but she has led a middle-class life as the wife of an engineer on Sydney’s North Shore. She is not a member of a political party but she has been a political activist for over fifty years. She is Australian born and bred, but has always felt an outsider in mainstream Australia. She is not a historian but she has published four books about her family’s origins and about the struggle to win a ‘Yes’ vote in 1967. 
Bandler was born on September 27, 1918 on a banana farm in New South Wales, to a father who had been "blackbirded" (kidnapped and forced into slave labor) in 1883 from his native island in what was known as the New Hebrides, and an Australian-born mother of Indian and Scottish descent. During the Depression she left high school and went to work as a milliner. But when World War II brought the opportunity for women to serve in the Women's Land Army, she gained a consciousness of the inequities dealt to the Aboriginal people, particularly Aboriginal women who earned a fraction of what other women were paid.

Ryan continues to list Bandler's very unusual (for a woman of color in Australia) relationships, travels and pursuits:

After the War, she lived a cosmopolitan life in Kings Cross, where she had a long affair with a Finnish sailor, took music lessons to improve her fine singing voice and learn the importance of a public presence on the stage, and studied at WEA classes to overcome her lack of education. Her political involvement with the Left enabled her to travel to Europe in 1951 to attend a major cultural youth festival. In this formative period of adulthood, she gained a very sophisticated understanding of herself sexually and politically. In 1952 she married Hans Bandler, a Jewish refugee engineer from Vienna. It proved an enduring partnership, based on shared political beliefs and a great love of classical music and gardening.
In 1956, when their daughter was two years old, Faith used her middle-class security to become a fulltime political activist, determined to eradicate discriminatory laws and practices against Aboriginal peoples.
 From 1956 to the early 1970s, Bandler was a major influence, spokesperson and figurehead in the fight to gain full citizenship rights for the Aboriginal people. As general secretary of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders , Bandler led the campaign for a constitutional referendum to remove discriminatory provisions from the Constitution of Australia. In 1967, after the federal government had agreed to hold a referendum on the Aboriginal question, Bandler was appointed New South Wales campaign director, a position she fulfilled with energy, skill and enthusiasm. By the time the Referendum was won in May 1967, Faith Bandler had become a major public figure.

As the Black Power movement developed into the early 70s, being black but not Aboriginal was now a disadvantage, and Bandler "retired" from the Aboriginal struggle to begin researching, writing about and campaigning for the rights of South Sea Islander Australians. This was an even more challenging political feat, since she not only was fighting to overturn the false historians who claimed that "blackbirded" Islanders were in fact voluntary indentured servants, but she was also ostracized by the Aboriginal Rights community who had become influenced by a separatist Black Power ideology. Finally, in the year 2000, the Queensland government offered a measure of official recognition to the South Sea Islanders when it conducted a ‘recognition ceremony’ at Parliament House in Brisbane -- largely due to Bandler's research, writing and publicizing of the cause.

Bandler has also written and co-authored many books, including two histories of the 1967 referendum, an account of her brother's life in New South Wales, and a novel about her father's experience of blackbirding in Queensland.


In 1975, she traveled to Ambryn Island, the land of her father's birth from which he had been kidnapped 92 years prior. In 2009, she was appointed as a Companion of the Order of Australia (a sort of Australian "knighthood").

In interviews about her personal evolution as a political activist, Faith Bandler expresses a deep gratitude and strong consciousness of the influence of other women who served as her mentors and motivators.

Sources:

National Museum of Australia http://www.indigenousrights.net.au/person.asp?pID=954

Australian Humanities Review (Lyndall Ryan's review of Marilyn Lake's book) http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-May-2003/ryan.html

Australian Biography (Australian government site) http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/bandler/

Further links available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Bandler

[My Awesome Woman posts were first written for and published to a closed Facebook group, and are republished here.]

30 June 2008

Gay Marriage Was Decided 197 years ago:
Get Over It

**UPDATED: Please forgive my horrible mis-citation. Madison wrote Federalist Papers, not Jefferson. Duh.**

I'm sick and tired of gay marriage being a key issue in politics. Get over it, people!

As a preamble, I feel the need to warn you: I refuse to get into debates about the values and/or downfalls of any one religion. I realize that in discussing morals and base values the line between politics and religion can be blurred. Although I do personally find the religious right offensive, abrasive, and sometimes just plain stupid -- I appreciate the value of faith, and would never attack an individual on the basis of their beliefs. You would think that a faction so often berated for their beliefs would not attack others simply because of their love life. Since when are we a nation of Evangelists?

On that note, a law based solely on religious beliefs would be entirely unconstitutional. Have we forgotten about separation of church and state? Apparently we have. Check out our coinage, our Pledge of Allegiance, the mottos plastered all over federal buildings. I'm sick of it.

Some argue that the words "separation of church and state" never appear in the Constitution, and so there need be no concern over religious rule of law. Alright. How about the 1st amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It was the foremost concern of our founding fathers -- many of whom (religious themselves) came to the New World to escape intolerance perpetrated by ruling religion elsewhere.

If that's not enough, some may argue that the Constitution does not protect sexual rights. Well...
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Amendment IX)

How about the big one?
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." (Amendment XIV, Section 1)

I'd like to point out that any ban appearing in a constitutional amendment would be unprecedented and untrue to the original spirit of the document. The Constitution and joined Bill of Rights are intended to protect the civil liberties of the people from institutionalized oppression, not to prohibit so called undesired behavior by individuals. As shown in the Federalist Papers (a series of 85 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- designed to grow the support base for the Constitution during the failure of the Articles of Federation) [see www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/], the major goal of the founding fathers was to protect the people from the people, and thus the tyranny inherent in big government. America has been a haven for systematic intolerence only in our worst hours. Why should we revert to the days of segregation and the destruction of civil rights based only upon arbitrary categorical labels?!

If you believe that "it is wrong to be gay," then don't be gay! How is gay marriage hurting the country? If single parents can raise functioning productive citizens, then so can LGBTQ couples. Why is family planning a governmental issue anyway? Laws against murder for example, are devised because the act directly threatens the people. What is the threat of two people in love, who only want an official outlet for it?

I will not even justify the argument that individuals choose to be gay with a counter-argument. I merely ask: Do you choose to be straight? Hypothetically, do you think you would suddenly be aroused by members of the same sex if you chose to be gay?

I've heard people say that "if gay marriage is allowed, polygamy will be next!" This is simply hogwash. First off, I'm not sure how I feel about the intolerance of polygamy. But more importantly, our currently adopted policies concerning marriage are very specifically written for unions of two people. The laws can be immediately put into effect for gay marriage without any changes to policy whatsoever. Multiple marriage (MM- a term which is more PC than polygamy as that only applies to men with many wives and not vice versa), cannot be injected into our system. That would require multitudinous amendments and retractions to current policy, which would most likely take at least a decade to accomplish.

Furthermore, do not permit those who would ban gay marriage to call themselves "conservative."  Conservatism is based on the belief that the government has absolutely no business butting into the people's personal lives. By calling themselves conservative, these haters (for lack of a better modern phrase) are merely trying to trick the public -- most of whom pull the lever for their party members without knowing the issues.

Not too long ago it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. I'm sure that there are still people in this country who disagree with that act. I'm also sure that their protest is strongly founded in faith. Does this mean we should ban racial integration again? I thought we've gone over all of this... SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a ban on gay marriage would be in DIRECT violation of the 14th amendment. By being married, straight couples receive many benefits financially and legally. I don't feel like listing them, so look it up if you don't take my word for it. "Equal protection" as named in the 14th amendment applies to all priveleges and rights allotted to the people. If one receives them, all must receive them. This country was founded on the belief that all political factions should be feared, monitered closely, and protected, whether in the majority OR minority. I've taken this directly from a Madison Federalist Paper (#51 if my memory serves me correctly).

Marriage should not be a legal institution. Let any two people be joined in a civil union, with equal priveleges given to all regardless of color, sex, age (as long as consenting), or any mixture thereof. If a couple wishes to have a ceremony outside of City Hall, let them use whatever place of worship that will have them.

So STFU already.

Did I miss anything?