text:
Home Improvement Ideas
How to Balance Your Ceiling Fan So It Doesn't Rattle and Wobble
Stop your ceiling fan from rattling with these straightforward steps to fix the wobble and balance the blades.
By Timothy Dale
Having a ceiling fan overhead is a great way to promote good air circulation throughout the home (and cool you down when it's turning the right direction), but when the ceiling fan starts making rattling sounds, you need to take steps to clean, tighten, and possibly replace parts of the fan to resolve the problem. There are many reasons a ceiling fan may rattle or wobble, so it's important to learn more about the possible causes of a wobbly ceiling fan in order to figure out the best fix.
James Nathan Schroder
Some people may not be bothered by the rattling sound a loose ceiling fan can make. Even if you're one of them, you should still figure out why the fan isn't working properly and try to repair it. If the issue is left unresolved, it can cause premature wear on the ceiling fan motor, tear out electrical connections, or loosen light fixtures and coverings to the point that they fall. Don't allow the problem to get worse when you can follow these steps to learn how to balance your ceiling fan.
Common Causes of a Wobbly Ceiling Fan
A ceiling fan has many different parts that can come loose, warp, break, or burn out, leading to significant issues with the fan. To get ahead of potential problems, it's a good idea to learn more about the various causes of a wobbly ceiling fan.
Ceiling fan parts, including fasteners, blades, blade arms, mounting screws, and fan canopy, are loose. The many different parts of a fan can loosen over time because of, in part, the force generated by the rotating fan. A wobbling fan isn't just a sign of potential loose parts: The unbalanced motion can also cause the parts to come loose in the first place, so even if you do find loose ceiling fan parts while you are troubleshooting a wobbling ceiling fan, they may be a symptom of the problem and not the cause.
Unbalanced blades can be the result of bent or warped blade arms, though in some cases the blades are unbalanced for an unknown reason. In these cases, the fan will wobble even though nothing seems to be mechanically wrong with it, but even if you can't figure out the cause, this problem can typically be fixed with a fan blade balancing kit.
Damaged or dirty blades will cause the ceiling fan to wobble and rattle. Bent, warped, or broken blades unbalance the fan and need to be replaced to fix the issue, but the blades don't need to be broken to cause problems. Even very dirty fan blades can result in a rattling ceiling fan because, as the thick layers of dirt build up, the additional weight on the blade can cause the fan to become unbalanced.
Motor cover placement can be a problem if the ceiling fan blade brackets are scraping or dragging on the motor housing cover. This is a relatively easy issue to fix by readjusting the position of the motor housing cover, securing the screws, and tightening the blade brackets.
Lack of lubrication in the internal parts of the fan can cause overheating and sticking during use. Some fans require regular lubrication, so make sure to check the manufacturer's directions to find out if the fan needs oil and where to find the oil hole on the fan body.
Tips for Assessing Ceiling Fan Issues
Once you are better acquainted with the potential problems, start with the easiest and most affordable repair to avoid buying replacement parts you may not actually need.
During the troubleshooting process, make sure that you don't skip any steps. For instance, it may seem unnecessary to measure the height of the fan blades when you are checking for loose parts, but if one blade is out of alignment, this could be the cause of the problem. Also, keep in mind that if you do need to purchase new fan blades, blade arms, or fasteners, you will need to find parts that match your ceiling fan model.
How to Balance a Ceiling Fan
Troubleshooting a rattling and wobbling ceiling fan starts with the most basic fixes. Keep in mind that, even if you find the initial cause of the problem, you should still check the ceiling fan for any additional issues or signs that could indicate trouble in the future.
Duster or old pillowcase
Microfiber cloth towels
Screwdriver set
Replacement fan arms
Ceiling fan balancing kit
Step 1: Clean the Ceiling Fan
Fan blades are designed to have even weight and positioning to maintain balance while the blades rotate at high speeds, but the weight of the blades can be affected by thick layers of dust and dirt. To fix this issue, turn off the ceiling fan and wait for it to come to a complete stop before positioning a ladder under the fan so that you can climb up and reach the blades.
If the fan blades are very dirty, wipe off the bulk of the dust and grime with a duster (or make less of a mess when cleaning a ceiling fan by using an old pillowcase), then wet a microfiber cloth with warm water and use it to clean the blades, blade arms, and motor housing. A cotton swab can help get into the narrow cracks and crevices for a more thorough cleaning. After washing and drying the ceiling fan, turn it on and test to see if the problem is resolved.
Step 2: Secure the Ceiling Fan Mount
A ceiling fan needs to be properly secured during installation to prevent it from wobbling, so if cleaning the fan didn't resolve the issue, then the next step is to inspect and secure the ceiling fan mount. Loosen the ceiling fan bracket housing to visually inspect the fan mount and bracket fasteners. Check the label on the electrical box to figure out whether it is rated for ceiling fans. If the electrical box is not rated for ceiling fans, then it will need to be replaced, though this is a fix better left to a professional electrician.
If the electrical box is rated for ceiling fans, you can secure the fan mount by using a screwdriver to tighten the fasteners on the wood beams or metal brace. After tightening these fasteners, wiggle the fan mount to ensure that it doesn't shift.
Step 3: Tighten Loose Fasteners
The next step in this troubleshooting process is to inspect the various parts of the ceiling fan for any loose fasteners, light fixtures, blades, blade arms, or other fan parts, like the canopy. Use a ladder to get close enough to the fan to thoroughly inspect the entire unit. Tighten any loose fasteners you find with a screwdriver and make sure that the blades, blade arms, and light fixtures are secure before climbing down from the ladder and turning on the fan to test whether this fixed the wobble.
Step 4: Adjust the Ceiling Fan Blades and Arms
One factor that can sometimes be overlooked is the position of the ceiling fan blades and arms. If the blades are not even, then the fan will wobble and rattle during use. To fix this issue, climb up on a ladder and use a measuring tape to measure the vertical distance from the tip of each fan blade to the ceiling. If the measurements for each blade are not equal, then you can make slight adjustments by tightening the mounting screws on the motor housing. You can also adjust the position of the blades by gently bending the blade arms, though you need to be careful not to break the arms.
Take this opportunity to inspect the fan blades and the fan arms for any signs of damage, like warping, bending, or cracking. If the fan is damaged, you will need to buy replacement fan blades or blade arms that match the current fan model or consider replacing the entire ceiling fan. Most ceiling fan manufacturers will have a list of replacement parts available on the company website, though you may need to request this information from some companies.
Step 5: Install a Ceiling Fan Balancing Kit
When you have inspected the entire ceiling fan for issues and still can't figure out why the fan is unbalanced, it's time to pick up a ceiling fan balancing kit. These kits are affordable and effective, containing a plastic kit and multiple small weights that can be attached directly to the fan blades with an adhesive backing.
Start by attaching the plastic clip included in the kit halfway up the length of one blade, then turn on the fan to test whether it is still wobbling. Don't expect the problem to be fixed right away. You will need to test each fan blade to figure out which one is causing the imbalance before you can proceed.
When you find the problem blade, you can try to improve the imbalance by sliding the clip along the blade about an inch at a time, gradually working your way to the tip. Test the fan after each adjustment, and once you figure out the best position to help stabilize the rotation of the fan, install a balance weight at this location. Place it in the center of the fan blade and either use the adhesive backing or glue to secure the weight.
Remove the clip and test the fan. If it still wobbles, then you may have more than one blade that is unbalanced, which is why the kit comes with multiple weights. Repeat this process with each blade until the fan is rotating without rattling or wobbling.
Leave Electrical Problems to the Professionals
It's often said that some jobs are better left to the pros: There are inherent dangers in an inexperienced individual attempting to work with unfamiliar mechanical parts. So, you can attempt to DIY repair a broken fan blade or install a fan blade balancing kit, but when the risk becomes too great, it's better to trust the task to an experienced professional instead of making a costly mistake.
If the electrical box the fan is attached to is the source of the rattling and wobbling, then it may be because the wrong type of electrical box was used, or the box wasn't mounted properly. Unless you have significant experience working with electrical systems, contact a professional electrician to reinstall this electrical box properly.
10 Things That Squeak in Your Home (and How to Fix Them)
How to Install a Porch Light
How to Choose the Best Snow Shovel for Your Home
How to Quiet a Noisy Window Air Conditioner
How to Fix Christmas Lights So You Can Use Them for Many Seasons to Come
How to Fix a Running Toilet
14 Ceiling Fans That'll Keep You Cool All Summer Long
Your DIY Guide to Window Track Repair
The 9 Best Window Insulation Kits in 2023 To Stay Warm All Winter
How to Fix a Sticking Door
How to Fix Squeaky Floors
The 9 Best Ladders for Painting, Home Improvement, and Outdoor Use, According to Our Tests
How to Install a Ceiling Fan Box
How to Fix a Squeaky Door
The 8 Best Laser Levels of 2023 for Completing Any Home Improvement Project
How to Bleed a Radiator


text:
Tommie Vaughn
Rocker/Writer/Momma
Look close, my friends, Do you see the real me...
Tommie Vaughn adapted her love of the stage, to the love of the page.
As lead Singer and Songwriter for the alternative rock band Wall of Tom, she has released four albums and counting, playing a countless number of shows for the masses, and releasing art pop music videos on her own direction- lets just say Tommie is a true artist in every way.
Tommie created This Rock in My Heart and This Roll in My Soul, Book One and Two in a three part fictional series, based loosely on her experiences in the LA music scene, and is set to release the final book titled This Rock 'N' Roll Dream on May 19, 2020. Tommie and her band Wall of Tom, are also set to release a new single "Drive Through Fire" produced and mixed by the Grammy winning rock producer Toby Wright, along with a scorching new music video at the same time as her novel release in April, making her one busy gal.
After fifteen years of living life in the fast lane of Los Angeles, Tommie escaped the pavement and headed for the sand. She now resides in sunny Santa Barbara, California with her guitarist/husband and their two rock 'n' roll kids. Tommie's musings have been seen in many online and print publications, as a guest columnist for the Santa Barbara Sentinel and the Montecito Journal.
Tommie has a true artist heart and spirit, enjoying other mediums like photography, painting and interior design. She is known to flash her megawatt smile often and not so secretly dreams of becoming the next Partridge Family.
You only get one go at this life, might as well Rock it. ~Tommie Vaughn
© 2020 by Tommie Vaughn... Live Life LOUD

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Sound Status
Sound Status Update – October 2019
Come Celebrate Our Bay Heroes!
Join us Thursday, November 14, to hear about what's happening in Tacoma that's transforming our community into one of the most unique places to be in for environmental progress, and to recognize the heroes who are helping make it all happen. Come be a part of this special community event at the Pacific Seas Aquarium and celebrate with delicious food and wonderful friends!
Stand for Our Sound
@ the Pacific Seas Aquarium
5400 N Pearl St | Tacoma, WA
Doors open at 6:00 | Program at 7:00 | Close at 8:30
Purchase Tickets Today
If you need assistance accessing the event venue, please notify us before the event and we'll direct you to more accessible parking arrangements. Contact us at chb@healthybay.org or (253) 383-2429.
City Council Voting on Interim Regulations
Tacoma City Council will be voting to renew the Tideflats Interim Regulations on Tuesday, November 12 during the Council Meeting. Interim Regulations put a pause on certain new industrial uses in the Tideflats, like oil terminals, refineries, and bulk storage facilities. However, these protections still allow existing terminals and refineries to expand and bring more fossil fuels into our community. We need City Council to recognize that it doesn't matter whether the fossil fuels were brought to Tacoma by a new project or an existing one – they pose the same threat to our community and climate it doesn't make sense to ban one but allow the other. Join us to voice these concerns and ask Tacoma City Council to amend these regulations to cover existing refineries and terminals. We've developed talking points to help you with your testimony.
Final Reading and Council Vote on Tideflats Interim Regulations
Tacoma Municipal Building (747 Market Street) | Council Chambers | First Floor
Tuesday November 12, 2019 | 5:00 PM
Melissa Malott, CHB Executive Director, Has Been Appointed to the Tideflats Subarea Plan Advisory Group
The Tideflats Subarea Plan will establish a long-term vision for the Tacoma Tideflats, especially regarding how Tacoma will transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy future. This process is incredibly important because it will determine whether or not we set Tacoma onto a path towards a clean, healthy future.
Right now, the Subarea Plan is still very early in the planning process, but things are beginning to move forward. Governments who are a part of the process appointed stakeholders who will speak up for what this plan should address. We are humbled and honored to say that the Puyallup Tribe of Indians selected Melissa Malott to represent environmental interests on the Tideflats Stakeholder Advisory Group. This is a tremendous opportunity to a part of something that will shape Tacoma's future. Members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group will help develop the environmental review for the Plan, including how fossil fuels, contaminated site cleanups, stormwater control and treatment, sea-level rise, and habitat restoration, among other issues will be evaluated.
Mark Your Calendars for December 3!
Every year, millions of people support the causes they love on Giving Tuesday, the annual global day dedicated to giving. If you like our work and want to support what we do, remember to take part in CHB's Giving Tuesday to propel us towards a clean and healthy future for Commencement Bay and South Puget Sound. Your support is an essential part of helping our work continue.
Save the Date: Giving Tuesday, December 3.
Curbside Recycling Changes in Tacoma
There have been numerous changes to the City of Tacoma's recycling service that we want to make sure everyone is aware of. These changes include maintaining residential curbside commingled recycling service, with minor adjustments to the accepted curbside recycling list. Learn more about the Recycle Reset at www.tacomarecycles.org or call Solid Waste Management at (253) 502-2100.
Communities for a Healthy Bay Announces Intent to File Clean Water Act Lawsuits Against Tyee Marina and the Marina at Brown's Point for Polluting Puget Sound September 5, 2022
CHB Deputy Director, Erin Dilworth featured on Tacoma TV's CityLine August 4, 2022
CHB Executive Director, Melissa Malott featured on Tacoma TV's Cityline June 22, 2022
Sound Status Update – June Edition June 1, 2022


text:
Sorrentino in the Oscar shortlist
Cristiana Paternò
The Hand of God by Paolo Sorrentino made it to the Oscar shortlist for Best International Film. The list includes 15 titles. It's the first time since 2014 that an Italian film is included in the shortlist, the last one being just Sorrentino's The Great Beauty, that would then win the award. Other Italian films that made it to the shortlist in recent years are Giuseppe Tornatore's The Unknown Woman (2008) and Cristina Comencini's Don't Tell, that also received a nomination.
The 15 shortlisted films are: The Worst Person in the World (Norway), Drive My Car (Japan), A Hero (Iran), The Hand of God (Italy), Flee (Denmark), I'm Your Man (Germany), Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom (Buthan), Prayers for the Stolen (Mexico), Plaza Catedral (Panama), Lamb (Iceland), Hive (Kosovo), Compartment no. 6 (Finland), Playground (Belgium), Great Freedom (Austria),The Good Boss (Spain).
"The Hand of God" is the Italian candidate for the Oscars
Sorrentino states: "I am glad to represent Italy at the Oscars. I warmly thank the Committee for choosing my film among so many beautiful works."
18 films in the run to represent Italy at the Oscars
18 Italian films are in the run to represent Italy in the category International Feature Film Award at the 94th Academy Awards.
Italy at the Oscars with "Pinocchio" and Pausini
Italy is in the Oscar run with Pinocchio by Matteo Garrone, which landed two nominations, and with The Life Ahead by Edoardo Ponti, nominated for Best Song.
"Notturno" in the Oscar shortlist for Best Documentary
Waiting for the Oscar ceremony on April 25h, the Academy unveiled the shortlists for 9 categories, including Best Documentary and Best International Film.
Pesaro Film Festival to celebrate Mario Martone
Marina Vlady remembers Mastroianni in Lyon
Capri, Hollywood for Francesco Rosi and Lina Wertmuller
True Colours sells "The King of Laughter" to the world


Why Gandhi Slippers? Quote Replaces Gandhi Face Now; Is Amazon Sensible to Indian Sentiments?
As Indian PM Narendra Modi replaced Gandhi's face on Khadi calendar of 2017, the US e-commerce giant Amazon has gone a step ahead to sell slippers with Gandhi face on them, ridiculing the face of India.
Called 'Gandhi flip flops', Amazon describes them as "foam rubber flip flops" with Gandhi face and priced $16.99 (Rs.1,200). This is the second time Amazon is trying to deface Indian icon after its earlier bid to sell doormats with the Indian flag Tricolour on them.
When the Indian media flashed the news, the page was removed but the name of Gandhi flip flops remains and a quote by Gandhi was imprinted on them instead of his face. The new tagline reads: "Live as if you were going to die tomorrow" on the left slipper and on the right slipper, it reads: "Live as if you were to live forever". The second message has Gandhi name next to it.
The US Amazon also sports Dalai Lama slippers with his quotes:"If you want others happy, practice compassion" and "If you want to be happy, practice compassion" with Dalai Lama name on the right side slipper. The company Musewear may be getting free publicity from the idiotic disrespect given to Indians and Tibetans but Amazon gets the flak finally.
The Indian government has asked its Ambassador in Washington to sensitize Amazon and Amazon is likely to come under flak in India too once the issue gets wider attention among its trusted buyers online.
National respect is something that has been accorded to Mahatma Gandhi for his decades-long struggle for India's freedom through non-violence and Modi should know that respect comes from people's conviction, not by imposition.


text:
Tag Archives: rainbow families
23 LGBTI Issues for the 2019 NSW Election
Posted on February 16, 2019 by Alastair Lawrie
The 2019 NSW election will be held on Saturday March 23.
It will determine who holds Government until March 2023.
Therefore, with just over a month to go, here are 23 LGBTI issues that parties and candidates should address.
Provide anti-discrimination protection to bisexual people
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is the only LGBTI anti-discrimination law in Australia that does not cover bisexual people. This should be amended as a matter of urgency, by adopting the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) definition of sexual orientation.[i]
Provide anti-discrimination protection to non-binary trans people
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 also fails to protect non-binary trans people against mistreatment, because its definition of transgender is out-dated. This definition should be updated, possibly using the Sex Discrimination Act definition of gender identity, to ensure it covers all trans and gender diverse people.
Provide anti-discrimination protection to intersex people
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 does not have a stand-alone protected attribute covering people born with intersex variations. It should be amended as a matter of urgency by adopting the Yogyakarta Principles Plus 10 definition of sex characteristics: 'each person's physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other sexual and reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary physical features emerging from puberty.'
Remove the special privileges that allow private schools and colleges to discriminate against LG&T students and teachers
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is the only LGBTI anti-discrimination law in Australia that allows all privates schools and colleges, religious and non-religious alike, to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality and transgender status.[ii] These special privileges must be repealed, so that all LGBTI students, teachers and staff are protected against discrimination no matter which school or college they attend.
Remove the general exception that allows religious organisations to discriminate in employment and service delivery
Section 56(d) of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 provides that its protections do not apply to any 'act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religions susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.' This incredibly broad exception allows wide-ranging discrimination against lesbian, gay and trans people. This provision should be replaced by the best-practice approach to religious exceptions in Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act 1998.
Remove the special privilege that allows religious adoption agencies to discriminate against LG&T prospective parents
Section 59A of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 allows religious adoption agencies to discriminate against prospective parents on the basis of homosexuality and transgender status. This special privilege should be repealed, because the ability of an individual or couple to provide a loving and nurturing environment for a child has nothing whatsoever to do with their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Reform commercial surrogacy laws
Under the NSW Surrogacy Act 2010, it is illegal to enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements, either within NSW or elsewhere (including overseas), punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Despite this prohibition, people in NSW (including many same-sex male couples) continue to enter into international surrogacy arrangements. It is clearly not in the best interests of children born through such arrangements for either or both of their parents to be subject to criminal penalties. NSW should either legalise and appropriately regulate commercial surrogacy domestically, or remove the prohibition on international surrogacy.[iii]
Recognise multi-parent families
Modern families continue to evolve, particularly in terms of the number of parents who may be involved in a child's upbringing, and especially within rainbow families (for example, with male donors playing an increasingly active role in the lives of children born with female co-parents). This growing complexity should be recognised under the law, including the option of recording more than two parents on official documentation.
Modernise the relationships register
The NSW relationships register may have declined in salience, especially within the LGBTI community, following the passage of same-sex marriage in December 2017. However, it remains an important option for couples to legally prove their relationship, especially for those who do not wish to marry (for whatever reason). However, the NSW Relationships Register Act 2010 requires modernisation, including by amending the term 'registered relationship' to 'civil partnership', and by allowing couples to hold a ceremony if they so choose.[iv]
Remove surgical and medical requirements for trans access to identity documentation
Another law requiring modernisation is the NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995, which currently provides that, in order to record a change of sex, a person must first have undergone a sex affirmation procedure. This is completely inappropriate, especially because many trans and gender diverse people either do not want to, or cannot (often for financial reasons), undergo surgery. Gender identity should be based on exactly that, identity, with this law amended to allow documentation to be updated on the basis of statutory declaration only, without medical practitioners acting as gate-keepers.[v] The range of identities that are recorded should also be expanded, and this should be done in consultation with the trans and gender diverse community.
Ban unnecessary and involuntary medical treatment of intersex children
One of the worst human rights abuses perpetrated against any LGBTI community in Australia is the ongoing involuntary medical treatment of intersex children, which often includes unnecessary surgical modification to sex characteristics. Despite a 2013 Senate report recommending action to end these harmful practices, nothing has been done, including in NSW. With a new review being undertaken by the Australian Human Rights Commission,[vi] whoever is elected in March must take concrete steps to ban non-consensual, medically unnecessary modifications of sex characteristics as soon as possible. In doing so, they should consult with Intersex Human Rights Australia and other intersex organisations, and be guided by the Darlington Statement.
Ban gay and trans conversion therapy
Another abhorrent practice that should be banned immediately is gay or trans conversion therapy, which is not therapy but is psychological abuse. Thankfully, this problem has received increased attention over the past 12 months, including a focus on the need for multi-faceted strategies to address this issue. However, a key part of any response must be the criminalisation of medical practitioners or other organisations offering 'ex-gay' or 'ex-trans' therapy, with increased penalties where the victims of these practices are minors.[vii]
Establish a Royal Commission into gay and trans hate crimes
In late 2018, the NSW Parliament commenced an inquiry into hate crimes committed against the gay and trans communities between 1970 and 2010. This inquiry handed down an interim report in late February, recommending that it be re-established after the election. However, in my view a parliamentary inquiry is insufficient to properly investigate this issue, including both the extent of these crimes, and the failures of NSW Police to properly investigate them. Any new Government should establish a Royal Commission to thoroughly examine this issue.[viii]
Re-introduce Safe Schools
The Safe Schools program is an effective, evidence-based and age-appropriate initiative to help reduce bullying against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students. Unfortunately, following a vitriolic homophobic and transphobic public campaign against it, the NSW Government axed Safe Schools in mid-2017. In its place is a generic anti-bullying program that does not adequately address the factors that contribute to anti-LGBTI bullying. The Safe Schools program should be re-introduced to ensure every student can learn and grow in a safe environment.[ix]
Include LGBTI content in the PDHPE Syllabus
The NSW Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) curriculum does not require schools to teach what lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex mean, or even that they exist. The new K-10 Syllabus, gradually implemented from the beginning of 2019, excludes LGBTI students and content that is relevant to their needs. It is also manifestly inadequate in terms of sexual health education, with minimal information about sexually transmissible infections and HIV. The Syllabus requires an urgent redraft to ensure LGBTI content is adequately covered.[x]
Expand efforts to end HIV
NSW has made significant progress in recent years to reduce new HIV transmissions, with increased testing, greater access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and higher treatment rates. However, new HIV diagnoses among overseas-born men who have sex with men are increasing. The NSW Government should create an affordability access scheme for people who are Medicare-ineligible that covers PrEP and HIV treatments (including for foreign students). The introduction of mandatory testing of people whose bodily fluids come into contact with police (aka 'spitting laws')[xi] should also be opposed.[xii]
Appoint a Minister for Equality
Both the NSW Government and Opposition currently have spokespeople with responsibility for women, ageing and multiculturalism. However, neither side has allocated a portfolio for equality. Whoever is elected on 23 March should appoint a Minister for Equality so that LGBTI issues finally have a seat at the Cabinet table.[xiii]
Establish an LGBTI Commissioner
The Victorian Government does have a Minister for Equality (the Hon Martin Foley MP). They have also appointed a Gender and Sexuality Commissioner (Ro Allen) whose role it is to co-ordinate LGBTI initiatives at a bureaucratic level. A new Government in NSW should also appoint an LGBTI Commissioner here.
Create an Office for Equality
While having leadership positions like a Minister for Equality and an LGBTI Commissioner are important, the work that is done by an Office for Equality within a central agency (like the Equality Branch within the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet) is essential to support LGBTI policies and programs across Government.
Convene LGBTI education, health and justice working groups
The NSW Government should establish formal consultative committees across (at least) these three policy areas to ensure that the voices of LGBTI communities are heard on a consistent, rather than ad hoc, basis.
Fund an LGBTI Pride Centre
Another initiative that is worth 'borrowing' from south of the NSW border is the creation of a Pride Centre, to house key LGBTI community organisations, potentially including a permanent LGBTI history museum. This centre would need to be developed in close partnership with LGBTI groups, with major decisions made by the community itself.
Provide funding for LGBTI community organisations
There is significant unmet need across NSW's LGBTI communities, which should be addressed through increased funding for community advocacy, and service-delivery, organisations, with a focus on intersex, trans and bi groups, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LGBTI bodies. This should also include funding for LGBTI services focusing on youth, ageing, mental health, drug and alcohol, and family and partner violence issues, and to meet the needs of LGBTI people from culturally and linguistically diverse and refugee backgrounds.
Develop and implement an LGBTI Strategy
If, in reading this long list, it seems that NSW has a long way left to go on LGBTI issues, well that's because it's true. The birthplace of the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras parade has fallen behind other states and territories when it comes to LGBTI-specific policies and programs. We need a whole-of-government strategy, including clear goals and transparent reporting against them, to help drive LGBTI inclusion forward.
[i] For a comparison of Australian anti-discrimination laws, see: A Quick Guide to Australian LGBTI Anti-Discrimination Laws.
[ii] Sections 38C, 38K, 49ZH and 49ZO. For more, see: What's Wrong With the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
[iii] For more, see: Submissions to Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into Surrogacy.
[iv] For more, see: Submission to Review of NSW Relationships Register Act 2010.
[v] For more, see: Identity, not Surgery.
[vi] My submission to the AHRC Consultation re Medical Interventions on People Born with Variations of Sex Characteristics can be found here.
[vii] For more, see: Criminalising Ex-Gay Therapy.
[viii] For more, see: Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Gay and Trans Hate Crimes.
[ix] For more, see: Saving Safe Schools.
[x] For more, see: Invisibility in the Curriculum.
[xi] For more, see: Submission re Mandatory BBV Testing Options Paper.
[xii] For more HIV-related policy priorities, see ACON, Positive Life NSW, SWOP and the NSW GLRL '2019 NSW State Elections Issues' document.
[xiii] For more, see: Increasing LGBTI Representation.
Posted in LGBTI anti-discrimination, LGBTI NSW	/ Tagged Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, bisexual, conversion therapy, gay, homophobia, intersex, intersex surgery, LGBT, non-binary, rainbow families, religious exceptions, Safe Schools, transgender birth certificates	/ 2 Comments
Submission re Queensland Registering Life Events Discussion Paper
The following is my submission in response to the Queensland Government Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper. For more information on this review, go here.
BDM Act Review Team
City East, Brisbane QLD 4002
bdmlegislativereview@justice.qld.gov.au
To the BDM Act Review Team
Submission re Registering Life Events Discussion Paper
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Registering Life Events: Recognising sex and gender diversity and same-sex families Discussion Paper.
I write this submission as a long-time advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.
I also write this as a cisgender gay man, and am therefore guided by the views of those groups directly affected by the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003.
Specifically, with respect to questions 1 to 7 I endorse both the submission to the current review by Intersex Human Rights Australia (IHRA),[i] and the Sex and Gender Advisory Group's letter to the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department Review of the Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender.[ii]
Where there is any inconsistency between this submission and the views of these groups, I defer to them as experts in these areas.
Question 1. How should a person's sex be recorded on the birth, adoption and death registers?
Question 2. Do you have any other comments on this issue?
I support the views expressed in Recommendation 3 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: Queensland should end legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.
I also agree with IHRA that this recommendation is unlikely to be achieved in the short-term and therefore support their recommendation 4, namely that: In the absence of an end to legal classification of individuals by sex or gender, Queensland should recognise 'non-binary', alternative (for example, self-affirmed) and multiple sex markers. Changes should be available [via] a simple administrative procedure, for example, via a statutory declaration.
I note that this terminology, and in particular the use of the term 'non-binary', was also supported by the Sex and Gender Advisory Group in its letter of 24 September 2015.
Question 3. Should any changes be considered to the BDMR Act and BDMR Regulation to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland? If so, what should the changes be?
Question 4. Should any changes be made to the BDMR Act's provisions regarding an application to note a reassignment of sex for children/young people under the age of 18? If so, what should the changes be?
Yes, significant changes must be made to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 to improve the legal recognition of sex and gender diverse people in Queensland. This includes the removal of the major hurdles that currently prevent people from accessing accurate and appropriate identity documentation.
First, the requirement that trans and gender diverse people must have 'sexual reassignment surgery'[iii] before being able to update their sex on the birth register must be removed. This requirement is inappropriate as not all transgender people want or are able to undertake such procedures (for a variety or reasons, including financial).
Second, the requirement that applications to note the reassignment of a person's sex 'must be accompanied by statutory declarations, by 2 doctors, verifying that the person the subject of the application has undergone sexual reassignment surgery' [section 23(4)(b)] must also be removed. The medicalisation of identity recognition processes is also inappropriate – doctors should not be 'gatekeepers' of the identity of trans and gender diverse people.
The process for updating sex and gender details should be based on the experience and/or identity of the individual involved – not the opinion of medical 'experts' – and should be straight-forward, most likely affirmed through a simple statutory declaration.
The same principles should also apply with respect to minors, with no medical gatekeepers involved, and the only caveat being that they are able to demonstrate their capacity for consent. Obviously, this also means that where a minor is able to demonstrate such capacity, they should be permitted to amend their identity documentation in the absence of approval from parent(s) or guardian(s).
Finally, I endorse Recommendation 6 of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission that: In the absence of legislation and regulation that implements prior BDM recommendations, the Queensland government should ensure that a separate, simple and accessible pathway is available for people born with variations of sex characteristics to correct details on birth certificates.
Question 5. Should the BDMR Act contain provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person's sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere?
Question 6. Should BDMR Act allow for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate which can be used by a person as proof of their sex or gender?
Yes, I support the inclusion of provisions to allow for the reassignment of a person's sex for individuals who reside in Queensland but whose birth was registered elsewhere. This would seem to be an important practical measure for people who are unable to update these details in other jurisdictions, for a variety of possible reasons.
I am not in a position to comment on the process for such recognition – including the specific proposal for the issuing of a gender recognition certificate/identity acknowledgement certificate – and defer to the views of trans, gender diverse and intersex organisations on this question.
Question 8. Should the BDMR Act be amended to permit same-sex parents to choose how they are recorded on a birth or adoption registration?
Yes, although this should not be limited to 'same-sex parents' – all parents should be able to nominate how they are recorded. This would better reflect the diversity of modern families, not just in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity, but also in terms of methods of family creation.
Question 9. If so, what descriptors should be available and in what combinations?
At the very least, parents should have the option of nominating as 'mother', 'father' or 'parent', thereby allowing the combinations of mother/father, mother/mother, father/father, mother/parent, father/parent and parent/parent.
I am not in a position to comment on what other terms may be preferable (especially with respect to the potential use of 'birth mother' or 'birth parent') but encourage the BDM Act Review Team to consult directly with rainbow families on these issues.
Question 10. Do you have any other comments on this issue?
I note that the Discussion Paper states that '[t]he issue of whether or not a child's birth or adoption registration should include more than two parents and the issuing of integrated birth certificates listing more than two parents will be canvassed in a subsequent discussion paper.'
I take this opportunity to pre-emptively express the view that, in contemporary Australia, there is already a wide range of family structures in existence – including where children are raised by three or four different parents – and that the law should be amended to reflect this reality.
I also take this opportunity to express my support for the first two recommendations of the Intersex Human Rights Australia submission to the current review, namely that:
Recommendation 1. Queensland should protect children's right to bodily integrity, in line with the Darlington Statement and the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10
Recommendation 2. The Queensland government should protect people from discrimination and violence on grounds of 'sex characteristics', in line with the attribute defined in the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.
These are important issues and both represent serious shortcomings in Queensland law (as well as in other jurisdictions within Australia). The Queensland Government has in recent years adopted a progressive agenda on LGBTI issues overall – I strongly encourage it to add both of these items to that list.
Thank you for considering this submission as part of this important review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the details below should you require additional information.
Alastair Lawrie
The Palaszczuk Labor Government has already enacted a strong LGBTI reform agenda – but there's plenty left to do.
[i] Morgan Carpenter, 4 April 2018: https://ihra.org.au/32033/submission-bdm-queensland/
[ii] Gavi Ansara, Sue Webeck, Morgan Carpenter, Peter Hyndal and Sally Goldner, 24 September 2015, as published on the National LGBTI Health Alliance website: https://lgbtihealth.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FOR-DISTRIBUTION-AGD-Sex-and-Gender-Guidelines-Review-Advisory-Group-Endorsement-Letter.pdf
[iii] Defined in the Act as:
'means a surgical procedure involving the alteration of a person's reproductive organs carried out:
(a) to help the person to be considered a member of the opposite sex; or
(b) to correct or eliminate ambiguities about the sex of the person.'
Posted in Families, Intersex, LGBTI Queensland, Transgender	/ Tagged Annastacia Palaszczuk, birth certificates, Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003, Intersex Human Rights Australia, National LGBTI Health Alliance, rainbow families, same-sex parents, sex characteristics, sexual reassignment surgery, trans, trans and gender diverse	/ 2 Comments
Submission re Queensland Adoption and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Posted on October 12, 2016 by Alastair Lawrie
The Queensland Labor Government has proposed legislation to finally allow adoption by same-sex couples in that state. The Adoption and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 is currently being considered by a Parliamentary Committee, before being debated and voted upon later in 2016.
My submission to the Committee is included below. If you are reading this post on Wednesday 12 October, you can also watch the Committee's public hearings about the Bill here.
Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee
c/- hcdsdfvpc@parliament.qld.gov.au
To the Committee
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission regarding the Adoption and Other Legislation Amendment Bill ('the Bill').
In this submission, I will focus on one aspect of this legislation – the proposed reform to allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
This reform is outlined in clause 13 of the Bill, which would amend section 76 of the Adoption Act 2009 to remove the requirement that a person expressing an interest in being assessed for suitability as an adoptive parent has a spouse, and that their spouse is not of the same gender as themself.
I strongly support this reform, for two reasons.
First, it removes unjustifiable discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.
The overwhelming majority of credible research shows that children raised in same-sex parented families are as healthy, and as happy, as those raised by mixed-sex couples.
As Deborah Dempsey found in the 2013 research paper "Same-sex parented families in Australia"[i]:
"[o]verall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families".
This conclusion was supported by research in the following year, by Dr Simon Crouch and others, that:
"children with same-sex attracted parents in Australia are being raised in a diverse range of family types. These children are faring well on most measures of child health and wellbeing, and demonstrate higher levels of family cohesion than population samples."[ii]
These findings accord with reputable studies from overseas, with evidence consistently revealing that children from same-sex parented families experience the same levels of physical and mental health as their peers, if not better.
Based on this research, continuing to impose legal criteria that restricts prospective adoptive parents to those who have a spouse of a different gender, can be seen for what it really is – discrimination against LGBTI people that is both unnecessary, and completely without foundation.
It is time such discrimination was removed from the statute book, and I am grateful that the Bill will accomplish this.
Second, and even more importantly, removing this discrimination is in the best interests of children because it will help ensure an adopted child has the best possible adoptive parents.
As the research demonstrates, parenting ability has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
Some cisgender heterosexual people make wonderful parents, while others do not. The same is undoubtedly true of members of the LGBTI community.
But to determine that only people who are in mixed-gender relationships may apply to become adoptive parents, while the LGBTI people who would make wonderful parents may not, carries with it the inherent risk that a child misses out on being adopted by more suitable parents solely because past Queensland Parliaments have determined that those people do not have the 'right' sexual orientation, gender identity or sex.
After all, it is only logical that, if the pool of prospective adoptive parents is reduced because of irrelevant criteria, the overall depth and quality of that pool is diminished.
Indeed, this argument was explicitly acknowledged in the second reading speech by Minister Fentiman, who noted that:
"[t]he bill recognises the need to provide fairness and equity and amends eligibility criteria to enable same-sex couples, single people and people undergoing fertility treatment to adopt a child. This will result in a broader and more flexible pool of people from which to select for assessment as suitable adoptive parents. Importantly, this change will mean more options will be available for matching a child to prospective adoptive parents who will best meet the child's individual needs."
On the basis of the above two reasons – that the Bill will remove unjust discrimination against LGBTI people, and that the proposed changes are in the best interests of children who are adopted – I urge the Committee to recommend that the Adoption and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 be passed.
Ultimately, I call on the Queensland Parliament to support this reform as a matter of priority, thus recognising the diversity of modern families, and ensuring that they are treated equally under the law.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a submission on this important Bill. Should the Committee want any additional information, or wish to clarify any of the above, I can be contacted at the details provided below.
[Update 10 January 2017: Queensland Parliament passed legislation to allow for adoption by same-sex couples on Wednesday 2 November 2016, removing a major barrier to the equal treatment of LGBTI people, and relationships, under Queensland law. The Brisbane Times reported on this long-overdue law reform success here.]
[i] Dempsey, D, "Same-sex parented families in Australia", Child Family Community Australia, Research Paper No. 18, 2013.
[ii] Crouch, S, Waters, E McNair, R, Power, J, Davis, E, "Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parented families: a cross-sectional survey", BMC Public Health, 21 June 2014.
Posted in Families, LGBTI, LGBTI Queensland	/ Tagged adoption, Adoption Act 2009, adoption equality, gay, LGBTI adoption, Queensland, Queensland adoption, rainbow families, same-sex adoption, same-sex couples, same-sex parents, Shannon Fentiman	/ Leave a comment
Submission to Review of the Queensland Adoption Act 2009
Posted on March 6, 2016 by Alastair Lawrie
Update 16 January 2017:
Queensland Parliament passed legislation to allow for adoption by same-sex couples on Wednesday 2 November 2016, removing a major barrier to the equal treatment of LGBTI people, and relationships, under Queensland law.
The Brisbane Times reported on this long-overdue law reform success here.
Update 11 August 2016:
On Saturday 6 August, the Queensland Government announced that, in response to this review, it will be proposing legislation to ensure that single people, and same-sex couples, will be able to adopt legally in Queensland.
The consultation report can be found here.
This is obviously wonderful news for rainbow families – both existing and prospective – and for LGBTI Queenslanders generally. I am thankful to have played a small part through this consultation. Please see my own submission to this review below.
The Queensland Government is currently undertaking a review of the Adoption Act 2009.
This is an important opportunity for the LGBTI community to let the Government know that the current discriminatory provisions contained in the Act – which prevent same-sex couples from together adopting children, and which also prevent a same-sex partner from adopting their partner's child – must be removed as a matter of priority.
Full details of the consultation can be found here. Public submissions close 5pm Friday 11 March 2016. The following is my submission:
Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
Child and Family Legislative Review
adoptionactreview@communities.qld.gov.au
Sunday 6 March 2016
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission as part of the five-year review of the operation of the Queensland Adoption Act 2009.
In this submission, I will primarily focus on one of the nine questions posed by the Discussion Paper, namely:
Do you consider the eligibility criteria provisions of the Act to be fair and continue to meet the needs of children who require adoptive families?[i]
In my view, the answer to this question is unequivocally no.
As stated in the Discussion Paper, the Adoption Act 2009 currently requires that "To be eligible to express an interest [in adopting] a range of criteria must be met: [including]
The person has a spouse who:
is also eligible
is not the same gender as the person
has been the person's spouse for at least two years"[ii] [emphasis added].
This is clearly neither fair, nor is it in the best interests of the child(ren).
To begin, including a requirement that prospective adoptive parents must be in mixed-gender relationships, rather than in a relationship with someone of the same gender, is unfair in its discriminatory approach toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, excluding the majority of LGBTI people from even applying to adopt children in Queensland.
This discrimination is not supported by evidence showing that children are 'better off' being adopted exclusively by cisgender heterosexual couples.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of credible research shows that children raised in same-sex parented families are as healthy, and as happy, as those raised by mixed-sex couples.
As Deborah Dempsey found in the 2013 research paper "Same-sex parented families in Australia"[iii]:
"[o]verall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children. Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families" [emphasis added].
"children with same-sex attracted parents in Australia are being raised in a diverse range of family types. These children are faring well on most measures of child health and wellbeing, and demonstrate higher levels of family cohesion than population samples."[iv]
The criteria which restricts prospective adoptive parents to those who have a spouse of a different gender should be removed from Queensland's Adoption Act 2009 as it unnecessarily, and completely without foundation, discriminates against members of the LGBTI community.
Even more importantly, it should be removed because it potentially denies an adopted child from having the best possible adoptive parents.
As the research referred to above demonstrates, parenting ability has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
But to determine that only people who are in mixed-gender relationships may apply to become adoptive parents, while the LGBTI people who would make wonderful parents may not, carries with it the inherent risk that a child misses out on being adopted by more suitable parents solely because the Queensland Parliament has determined that those people do not have the 'right' sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
If adoption laws are to be based on the best interests of the child, and nearly all people agree that should be the case, then this is another compelling reason to remove eligibility criteria based on the gender(s) of the prospective adoptive parents.
These factors – the discriminatory impact of the Queensland Adoption Act 2009 on LGBTI people, and the failure to take into account the best interests of the child – are both exacerbated in the current denial of the ability of people who are in same-gender relationships to apply to be the adoptive parents of their partner's child (ie step-parent adoption)[v].
In this situation, and based on the other eligibility criteria contained in the Act, the applicant, their partner and the child(ren) involved would have been living together for at least three years. That's three years of sharing a home and living together, for all intents and purposes, as a family.
What possible justification could there be to say that an LGBTI step-parent should be denied the ability to adopt their partner's child, where they would otherwise be able to if they were cisgender and heterosexual?
In my view, and I would hope the view of the majority of the Queensland Parliament, there can be no justification for discriminating in this way, and denying these families – because they are families, irrespective of what the current law says – the legal protections that they require, and that they deserve.
Introducing adoption equality – by removing restrictions on the ability of LGBTI people to adopt, both 'unknown' children and their partner's child(ren) – would also bring Queensland laws into line with the majority of other Australian states and territories, thereby aiding national consistency in this important area of family law and legal recognition[vi].
As the Discussion Paper notes[vii], NSW, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT all have existing adoption equality laws. In the time since the Discussion Paper was released, Victoria has also amended its laws to ensure that LGBTI people have the ability to adopt children[viii].
With South Australia currently reviewing its adoption laws, and the realistic prospect that adoption equality will be introduced there in the near future, that would leave the Northern Territory as the only other jurisdiction in Australia continuing to discriminate against adoptive parents on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
By passing amendments to the Adoption Act 2009 to remove discrimination against LGBTI people, Queensland Parliament would therefore be helping to recognise the 21st century reality – that rainbow families exist, and that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people can be just as good parents as cisgender heterosexual people.
Thank you for taking this submission into account as part of the five-year review. If you would like more information, or to clarify any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at the details provided.
Queensland Minister for Communities, Women and Youth, and Child Safety, the Hon Shannon Fentiman MP.
[i] Discussion paper: Public consultation for the review of the operation of the Adoption Act 2009, page 9.
[ii] Ibid page 8.
[iii] Dempsey, D, "Same-sex parented families in Australia", Child Family Community Australia, Research Paper No. 18, 2013.
[iv] Crouch, S, Waters, E McNair, R, Power, J, Davis, E, "Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parented families: a cross-sectional survey", BMC Public Health, 21 June 2014.
[v] The Discussion Paper states on page 12 that: "A person may apply to the Chief Executive to arrange an adoption of a stated child if: the person's spouse is not the same gender as the person."
[vi] Which is relevant to question 7 on page 16 of the Discussion Paper: "Are there approaches in other jurisdictions that Queensland could consider?"
[vii] Discussion Paper, Appendix: Adoption in Australia – Inter-jurisdictional analysis of legislative provisions.
[viii] ABC News, "Same-Sex Adoptions Laws Pass Victorian Parliament" December 9 2015.
Posted in Families, LGBTI Queensland	/ Tagged adoption, Adoption Act 2009, gay, known child adoption, LGBTI, LGBTI adoption, Queensland, rainbow families, same-sex adoption, same-sex parents, Shannon Fentiman, step-parent adoption, stranger adoption	/ Leave a comment
Submission to Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into Surrogacy
Update 19 May 2016:
In advance of the widely-anticipated election announcement by Malcolm Turnbull on Sunday May 8, a range of Parliamentary Committees handed down inquiry reports in the first week of May. This included the inquiry into surrogacy conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, with their final report – called Surrogacy Matters – available here.
This update will provide a brief summary of that report, including consideration of whether they incorporated any of the recommendations made in my submission to the inquiry (included below).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the Committee was chaired by George 'the Safe Schools program is like grooming' Christensen, the Committee did not support any change in approach to commercial surrogacy in Australia:
Recommendation 1. The Committee recommends that the practice of commercial surrogacy remain illegal in Australia.
Nevertheless, this is still a disappointing outcome, particularly given the Committee did accept my suggestion that a body like the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) could be tasked to develop best practice legislation in this area – they just decided to limit it to altruistic surrogacy:
Recommendation 2. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with the Council of Australian Governments, consider the development of a model national law that facilitates altruistic surrogacy in Australia. The model law should have regard to the following four guiding principles:
that the best interests of the child should be protected (including the child's safety and well-being and the child's right to know about their origins),
that the surrogate mother is able to make a free and informed decision about whether to act as a surrogate,
that sufficient regulatory protections are in place to protect the surrogate mother from exploitation, and
that there is legal clarity about the parent-child relationships that result from the arrangement.
Looking at this recommendation in detail, I can see absolutely no reason why these same 'guiding principles' could not also be used to develop a framework for commercial surrogacy for inclusion in the model law (but that would take a Committee, and a Parliament, with more courage than the one that was just dissolved).
On the positive side, the Committee notes on page 5 that "[m]any inquiry participants also highlighted a number of discriminatory provisions that exist in relation to gender, marital status and sexual orientation" in state and territory laws (and referenced submissions from the Australian Human Rights Commission, myself, and the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby).
As a result, one of the factors the Committee believes the ALRC should consider is "the need for State and Territory laws to be non-discriminatory" (Recommendation 3), which is obviously welcome.
However, the Committee's recommendations around international commercial surrogacy are far less welcome – and far more frustrating.
The Committee acknowledged that the ban on domestic commercial surrogacy is a major contributing factor to Australian couples, including LGBTI couples, seeking access to commercial surrogacy in other countries. It also acknowledged that the criminalisation of this practice, by Queensland, NSW and the ACT, has so far been ineffective in stopping it.
But, instead of using this evidence to justify a reconsideration of the domestic prohibition of commercial surrogacy, the Committee decided to reinforce this 'criminalisation' agenda:
Recommendation 9. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation to amend the Migration Act 1958 such that Australian residents seeking a passport for a young child to return to Australia are subject to screening by Department of Immigration and Border Protection officials to determine whether they have breached Australian or international surrogacy laws while outside Australia, and that, where the Department is satisfied that breaches have occurred, the Minister for Immigration is given the authority to make determinations in the best interests of the child, including in relation to the custody of the child.
So, in Christensen & co's ideal world, Department of Immigration and Border Protection officials will investigate Australian families who return from overseas with children born through surrogacy arrangements and, presumably, assist in their criminal prosecution under state and territory law.
Most worrying of all is the proposal for the Minister for Immigration to make determinations about the custody of that child, including potentially stripping their parents of responsibility. Imagine for a moment the current Minister, Peter Dutton (or his predecessor, Scott Morrison) making such decisions, including about LGBTI families? Let's hope that terrifying reality never comes to pass.
All in all then, while the Committee's Surrogacy Matters report does include some positive recommendations (such as supporting the principle that state and territory surrogacy laws should be non-discriminatory), its failure to reconsider the ban on domestic commercial surrogacy, and its approach to international commercial surrogacy, is frustrating and worrying, respectively.
George Christensen, Committee Chair.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
spla.reps@aph.gov.au
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the inquiry into surrogacy, being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.
In this submission, I will not be addressing all eight terms of reference of the inquiry in detail.
Instead, I propose to focus on the following three issues:
Surrogacy and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) parent(s)
National consistency and
Commercial surrogacy, including international commercial surrogacy.
These three issues are of particular relevance to the first three terms of reference of the inquiry:
the role and responsibility of states and territories to regulate surrogacy, both international and domestic, and differences in existing legislative arrangements
medical and welfare aspects for all parties, including regulatory requirements for intending parents and the role of health care providers, welfare services and other service providers [and]
issues arising regarding informed consent, exploitation, compensatory payments, rights and protections for all parties involved, including children.
For context, I am writing this submission as an LGBTI advocate and activist, and as someone who is in a long-term same-sex relationship, but not as someone who intends to enter into a surrogacy arrangement at any point in the foreseeable future.
Surrogacy and LGBTI parents
While I am not an expert in surrogacy policy and/or law across Australia, I am aware that different jurisdictions have adopted different approaches to the eligibility of LGBTI people to access surrogacy.
Specifically, it is my understanding that, while most Australian jurisdictions now allow non-discriminatory access to altruistic surrogacy (including my current state of residence, NSW), some jurisdictions continue to prohibit same-sex couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation – including both South Australia and Western Australia.
There can be no justification for this discrimination.
Given this, I believe that it is time for the remaining Australian jurisdictions to remove any outstanding discrimination against LGBTI people seeking access to surrogacy. To support this objective, the current inquiry should express its support for the equal treatment of LGBTI parents and prospective parents, and encourage remaining jurisdictions to amend their laws.
Recommendation 1: The Committee should expressly support the principle that there should be no discrimination against LGBTI people seeking access to surrogacy and should encourage jurisdictions that currently discriminate against LGBTI people in this area to remove such discrimination as a matter of priority.
The above issue (LGBTI eligibility) is just one area where there is significant inconsistency in the legislative approach to surrogacy across Australia.
There are a variety of other inconsistencies, including the very different treatment of international commercial surrogacy by different states and territories (which will be addressed in more detail below).
There seems to be little justification for Australian jurisdictions to adopt such widely divergent approaches.
Moreover, the differences in legislative approach can have significant impacts on people who may be mobile, moving regularly between jurisdictions, who are contemplating becoming parents and where surrogacy is one, or even the most likely, method in which this may occur.
Alternatively, the differences in legislative approaches to surrogacy may induce, or in some cases compel, people to move between states and territories, especially to avoid possible criminal sanction.
As someone who has already lived in four different jurisdictions for extended periods (and twice in one of those jurisdictions), it seems illogical that at different points in time I would not have had access to altruistic surrogacy due to where I lived at the time, or that currently accessing international commercial surrogacy would make me a criminal in some of those places, but not others.
Wherever possible – and provided that LGBTI people are not denied access to surrogacy because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status – I believe that the laws regulating surrogacy should be consistent across all Australian jurisdictions, and that the current inquiry should adopt this as a principle for proposed reforms.
Recommendation 2: Provided that LGBTI people are not discriminated against, the Committee should expressly support the principle that the laws regulating surrogacy should be uniform across Australian states and territories, wherever possible.
Commercial Surrogacy, including International Commercial Surrogacy
The first two parts of this submission have covered issues that should be uncontroversial for most people – that LGBTI parents, and prospective parents, should be treated equally, and that, wherever possible, there should be national consistency on the laws which apply to surrogacy.
There is no denying, however, that the third issue is inherently controversial – and that is the question of whether, and if so how, commercial surrogacy should be allowed in Australia.
The current response by Australian states and territories has been to prohibit domestic commercial surrogacy in all circumstances, with three jurisdictions[iii] going one step further and criminalising participation in international commercial surrogacy arrangements as well.
My approach to this issue is informed by the following four observations:
Surrogacy arrangements, and especially commercial surrogacy arrangements, contain a risk of exploitation of the surrogate
The risk of exploitation significantly increases in the absence of appropriate regulatory oversight
There are some women who perform the role of surrogate, who wish to be paid for this service and who would not be exploited by doing so, and
There are many prospective parents, including but not limited to LGBTI (and especially gay male) people, for whom commercial surrogacy is their most likely avenue to become parents and who are therefore willing to participate in these arrangements, domestically or internationally and, in some cases, irrespective of its potential illegality.
Based on these observations, I do not believe that the current approach adopted by the states and territories on this issue is the correct one.
Instead, it is my view that it would be preferable for commercial surrogacy to be made lawful within Australia, but only within a regulatory framework that includes appropriate safeguards and oversight to minimise the risk of exploitation of surrogates.
As I have submitted previously to the NSW Government[iv], and to the National Health & Medical Research Council[v], I believe that the NSW and/or Australian Law Reform Commissions could be tasked with investigating this issue, and proposing a regulatory framework that significantly reduces the risk of surrogate exploitation.
This framework could then be considered by the respective Parliaments, rather than debating the issue of commercial surrogacy in the abstract, which is too often the case, and which too easily leads to blanket bans rather than a more considered approach.
Indeed, as I wrote to the NHMRC:
"While I agree that commercial surrogacy raises a variety of complex ethical issues, I do not necessarily agree with… broad-sweeping and all-encompassing statement[s] against commercial surrogacy. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to assert that in every single situation commercial surrogacy is 'unethical' or 'wrong'.
"Of course, I am, like most people, sensitive to the very real potential for commercial surrogacy to result in the exploitation of women for their reproductive capabilities. This has to be a major, if not the major, consideration in determining whether to allow commercial surrogacy and if so what form of regulation might be appropriate.
"However, I am also aware that the current legal situation – where commercial surrogacy in Australia is banned, and as a direct result of these laws an increasing number of Australian individuals and couples are engaging in commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas – may in fact cause a far greater degree of exploitation of women, certainly in developing countries and/or countries which do not closely regulate surrogacy arrangements.
"It may be that a domestic ban on commercial surrogacy has, contrary to the intended outcome of those who introduced it, in fact resulted in greater exploitation of women when considered as a whole. It may also be that, creating a domestic commercial surrogacy scheme, which would allow for direct oversight by Commonwealth (or State and Territory) authorities, could lead to a significant reduction in the potential for such exploitation…
"I… believe that this is an issue that requires further investigation, and could be the subject of a comprehensive review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, or their State and Territory equivalents.
"The ALRC could be asked not to review whether such a scheme should be adopted but to determine, if commercial surrogacy was to be allowed in Australia, what the best possible scheme (with the least potential for the exploitation of women) would look like. The Parliament, and the wider community, could then discuss and debate the option that was put forward and make an informed choice about whether such a model was preferable to the ongoing domestic ban on commercial surrogacy (and the corresponding trend to overseas surrogacy arrangements)."
It is my view that this process has the potential to produce a regulatory framework to allow commercial surrogacy within Australia that would significantly reduce the risk of surrogate exploitation and therefore allay the concerns, and garner the support, of a majority of stakeholders.
Recommendation 3: The Committee should recommend that the Australian Law Reform Commission be asked to review the issue of domestic commercial surrogacy and develop a regulatory scheme that significantly reduces the risk of exploitation of surrogates and which is then presented for the consideration of Parliament.
The above discussion obviously focuses on the issue of domestic commercial surrogacy, leaving the even more vexed question of international commercial surrogacy unanswered.
To some extent, I would hope that, were commercial surrogacy to be allowed within Australia, the demand to engage in international commercial surrogacy arrangements would be significantly reduced.
However, the introduction of such a scheme, either nationwide or in some states and/or territories, is likely to be years away. In the meantime, Australian individuals and couples will continue to seek to participate in international commercial surrogacy arrangements.
I think it is undeniable that some of these arrangements have already led, and will continue to lead, to the exploitation of the surrogate involved. There have also been very public examples of such arrangements where the child involved has been abandoned.
But I also believe that there are other examples where no such exploitation has taken place, and that the arrangement has demonstrably been to the benefit of all parties concerned, including the parents, the surrogate and the child(ren).
Given this, there are a range of options that could be explored, including the introduction of 'mutual recognition' laws, where, provided appropriate safeguards and oversight exist, the commercial surrogacy schemes of specific countries are deemed to be accepted under Australian law. However, I will leave it to experts in this area to provide submissions on how such options might be drafted.
What I do want to comment on is the approach of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory in criminalising those people who currently engage in international commercial surrogacy arrangements.
While, as indicated above, I understand the motivations behind such prohibitions, I question whether in practice they have been successful. Specifically, it is my understanding that individuals and couples from all three jurisdictions continue to engage in international commercial surrogacy.
Even if the overall number who do so has been reduced from before the respective bans were introduced (which may not be verifiable, and therefore may or may not be true), there are nevertheless negative consequences for children who are born through such arrangements.
This can include increased uncertainty of their legal parentage when their families have returned to Queensland, NSW and the ACT, as well as the obvious risk of criminal sanctions being imposed on their primary caregiver(s) were the international commercial surrogacy arrangement involved to come to the attention of authorities. As a general principle, it is difficult to see how criminalising the parents involved in such cases would benefit the child(ren).
In this context, and given the laws in all three jurisdictions have been in operation for some time, I believe it would be useful for Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory to specifically review their criminalisation of international commercial surrogacy arrangements, including the potential detriment of these policies on the children born as a result of such arrangements.
Recommendation 4: The Committee should recommend that states and territories that have introduced criminal sanctions for people engaging in international commercial surrogacy arrangements should review the effectiveness of these laws, including investigating their impact on the children born as a result of these arrangements.
Thank you again for the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry. I can be contacted at the details provided with this submission should the Committee wish to obtain additional information, or to seek clarification of any of the above.
[iii] ACT (Parentage Act 2004, s45), NSW (Surrogacy Act 2010, s11) and Queensland (Surrogacy Act 2010, s54).
[iv] Submission on Review of the NSW Surrogacy Act 2010, April 23 2014.
[v] Submission on NHMRC Review of Ethical Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology Stage 2, September 17 2015.
Posted in Families, LGBTI, LGBTI health	/ Tagged altruistic surrogacy, commercial surrogacy, domestic commercial surrogacy, domestic surrogacy, George Christensen, international commercial surrogacy, LGBTI equality, LGBTI parents, rainbow families, same-sex parents, surrogacy, Surrogacy Matters	/ Leave a comment


Urban Regeneration: an Opportunity for Climate-Friendly Urban Development?
Secretaría Ministerial Metropolitana De Vivienda Y Urbanismo Santiago Chile.
The German International Cooperation GIZ Ministerio De Vivienda Y Urbanismo Chile Greater Chennai Corporation.


text:
International publication features Warren Co. graphic design student at MSU
Contact: Sasha Steinberg
"It's a Boy" by Paul Prudhomme
STARKVILLE, Miss.--The work of a Mississippi State art major is being recognized in a newly established international photography challenge.
An entry by senior Paul T. Prudhomme of Vicksburg won in the "Night" category of the 2014 Australian-based Blow Up competition.
Specializing in graphic design, Prudhomme is the son of David Prudhomme and Tammy Davenport. His winning submission is titled "It's a Boy." To view his and other entries, see www.blow-up.com.au.
Announced earlier this year, the annual event is organized by the Blow Up Photography Competition and Print Book. In addition to the Sydney-based Australian Centre for Photography and The Lomographic Society, competition sponsors include The Impossible Project of Berlin, Germany, and Redbird Editions of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Professional and amateur artists from throughout the world were invited to submit photographs in one of five categories--black and white, family, instant, night or portraits. Judging was based on quality, creativity and best depiction of the submitting artist's chosen category.
In February, the five category winners will be profiled in the Blow Up #1 annual.
Selected from among more than 440 worldwide submissions, Prudhomme's image was created during MSU's just-completed fall semester in the digital photography class of assistant professor Dominic Lippillo.
"Paul is very talented and dedicated to photography, and he is doing a great job of getting his photography out into the world," Lippillo said of Prudhomme, whose work earlier was recognized in the New York Photo Festival's PhotoWorld 2014 Invitational.
Judges for the 2014 Blow Up competition included photographers Derek Henderson of New Zealand, Tamara Dean of Australia, Achim Lippoth of Germany, Nguan of Singapore, Henrik Purienne of South Africa, and Delphine Chanet and Melanie Rodriguez of France.
MSU's art department is home to the Magnolia State's largest undergraduate studio art program. Part of the College of Architecture, Art and Design, it offers a bachelor's degree with concentrations in ceramics, drawing, graphic design, painting, photography, printmaking and sculpture.
Information about the college and its art department may be found at www.caad.msstate.edu, facebook.com/CAADatMSU and twitter.com/CAADatMSU.
MSU is Mississippi's flagship research university, available online at www.msstate.edu, facebook.com/msstate, instagram.com/msstate and twitter.com/msstate.
Image Alternative Text: Miss Maroon and White Winners
MISS MAROON AND WHITE WINNERS
Image Alternative Text: No image available.
MSU-based Grant Association honored for enhancing Civil War study
MEDIA ADVISORY: Senior design students showcase projects at open house


text:
Николай Николаевич Ерёмин () — российский учёный-, доктор химических наук, профессор (Геологический факультет МГУ), профессор РАН (2015), член-корреспондент РАН (2019), исполняющий обязанности декана геологического факультета МГУ (с 2021)

Специалист в области кристаллохимии, термодинамики минералов и моделирования кристаллических структур минералов и твёрдых растворов, их дефектов и радиационной устойчивости материалов.

Биография

Родился 22 января 1968 года в Москве, СССР.

В 1992 году с отличием окончил геологический факультет МГУ.

В 1996 году защитил кандидатскую диссертацию в ГЕОХИ РАН на тему «Теоретическое моделирование и прецизионные экспериментальные исследования оксидов и силикатов олова и титана» (кандидат химических наук).

С 1997 года работает на геологическом факультете МГУ, пройдя путь от научного сотрудника до профессора (2012—2015) и заведующего кафедрой кристаллографии и кристаллохимии (с 2015 года).

В 2009 году защитил в МГУ докторскую диссертацию на тему «Атомистическое моделирование кристаллических структур минералов и дефектов и твёрдых растворов».

В декабре 2015 года ему было присвоено учёное звание профессора РАН.

В октябре 2019 года был избран членом-корреспондентом РАН.

22 ноября 2021 года назначен исполняющим обязанности декана геологического факультета МГУ, вместо Д. Ю. Пущаровского.

Научная деятельность

Сфера научных интересов — компьютерное моделирование структур и свойств минералов и неорганических соединений.

Автор 275 научных работ, из них 9 монографий.

Читает курсы «Математическое моделирование кристаллических структур», «Современные проблемы минералогии и кристаллографии», «Избранные главы теоретической кристаллохимии», «Кристаллография», «Кристаллохимия», «Методы моделирования твёрдых тел».

Основные труды
 «Атомистическое компьютерное моделирование структуры и свойств неорганических кристаллов и минералов, их дефектов и твёрдых растворов» (соавт., 2012);
 учебник «Неорганическая кристаллохимия. Кн. 1» (соавт., 2018);
 учебные пособия «Занимательная кристаллография» (соавт., 2013);
 «Кристаллохимия: адаптированный курс для Филиала МГУ в г. Душанбе» (соавт., 2017);
 «Отдельные главы структурной химии» (соавт., 2018);
 «Электронные тесты по месторождениям полезных ископаемых Таджикистана» (соавт., 2018).

Примечания

Ссылки

 Библиография в информационной системе «История геологии и горного дела» РАН.

Преподаватели геологического факультета МГУ
Профессора РАН

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Add a unique touch to your look with our navy blue Santee skinny tie. Its gold feather and polka dot accents are the perfect subtle print that is great for both the... read more Add a unique touch to your look with our navy blue Santee skinny tie. Its gold feather and polka dot accents are the perfect subtle print that is great for both the office and casual gatherings.
Exquisite! could not be more fashionable!
My order came SO fast and product and even packaging was done exceptionally well!!


Everyone wants their house to present a charming and attractive appearance, which would make it an object of envy for the neighbors. House owners indulge in painstaking work and planning to make their home, exactly like their dream house, which would contain all their prized possessions, and would offer them the required space and functionality they desire.
While all this is easily possible with the required amount of planning, it also entails a considerable amount of investment. Remodeling or renovating a property can be hard work and prove to be expensive, as the planning takes certain time, while the materials and fixtures used, are by no means cheap. But that does not mean that remodeling a house to make it better suited to one's needs is entirely impossible.
The most easy and simplest way to change the overall look of a house is to change the flooring of the property. It not only improves the overall ambiance of the house, but can also be chosen with an eye to its serviceability and use in a specific room of the property. Though changing the flooring of the entire house is not cheap, but the availability of wholesale flooring in Phoenix and other cities, serves to make it affordable for home owners to make the necessary remodeling changes easily.
Choosing to go for a wholesale flooring in Phoenix, offers a number of advantages, for aspiring renovators to make in their property.
By opting for acquiring flooring and tiles from wholesale providers of flooring, makes it highly convenient for interested property owners, to make the required and desired changes in their house, with no stress of the remodeling activity, being too hard on the pocket.
Home owners can easily improve the value of their property in the market, by changing the flooring of the house, and giving it an entirely new look and attractive appeal.
Wholesale flooring provider companies offer a wide and highly diverse range of flooring options, to decorate and redesign your house, just as you like. From carpets, to stone, porcelain, mosaic and vinyl tiles, to area rugs and laminated flooring, a home owner can easily have his pick to choose from, to select the type of flooring he would like for every room of his house.
You can even select the suitable floor tiles for the exterior of a property, as well as for pool sides and patios. The variety of different colors and textures, facilitate in choosing the ideal flooring according to one's requirements and taste preferences.
With the availability of wholesale flooring in Phoenix, and other cities, it is easier and cheaper to give your home the look that you want. Select the most suitable flooring according to the different rooms of the house, and the needs of its residents, to ensure functionality with chic style.


A parking spot is reserved for a government inspector outside Topps Meat Co., which closed and laid off 77 people today.
The company announced last month it would recall more than 21.7 million pounds of ground beef products because consumers in several states became ill from E. coli bacteria, which was detected in some of the frozen hamburger patties made at the Elizabeth plant.
The company said 77 workers have been laid off and a skeleton crew of about 10 people remain at the meat grinding factory, which had been in operation for 67 years.
Workers who were laid off console eachother outside Topps Meat Co.
"'This is tragic for all concerned," said Anthony D'Urso, chief operating officer. "In one week we have gone from the largest U.S. manufacturer of frozen hamburgers to a company that cannot overcome the economic reality of a recall this large. We sincerely regret the impact this will have on our employees, our customers and suppliers, and the community. Most of all, we regret that our products have been linked by public health agencies to recently reported illnesses. We hope and pray for the full recovery of those individuals."
The skeleton crew of workers will remain at the Elizabeth plant to assist U.S. Department of Agriculture officials in their ongoing investigation of the tainted beef recall. USDA officials said yesterday the company had to recall a year's worth of beef product because of improper documentation.
Topps Meat Co. closes down and lays off 77 people today.
As worker sits in her car and cries after Topps Meat Co. closes down and lays off 77 people today.
"We want to thank our loyal employees and customers who have supported us throughout the 67 years in which Topps Meat has been in business," D'Urso said. "Topps has always prided itself on providing the utmost quality and safety and never had a recall in our history until now. This has been a shocking and sobering experience for everyone."
Topps Meat was founded in 1940 and is a leading manufacturer and supplier of frozen hamburgers and fresh cut steaks.


text:
Q: Testing Android ContentProvider that accesses the Internet I've written my own Android ContentProvider for accessing certain Internet resources.  I'm trying to write some unit tests, but I do not want those tests to actually access the Internet.
Behind the scenes, my code is using the DefaultHttpClient class to access the web.  Basically, I'd like to know how I can use the ProviderTestCase2 class to intercept any HTTP requests and return a predefined String "response" instead.
I'm assuming there is something I can mock inside either ContentResolver or Context to do this, but I need a bit of guidance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange