No Pride, only shame in Hills Shire Council's "evil, devious motion"

 

At their ordinary council meeting of February 6, the Hills Shire Council overwhelmingly carried a motion proposed by Councillor Jerome Cox and described by a UN Human Rights Officer as an “evil devious motion”.

The motion effectively rules out council hosting Drag Queen Storytime events, while seeming to designate such events as “sexualised material designed to target children”.

The council motion was a response to motion 58 passed by the Local Government NSW conference last year.  Motion 58 calls for LGNSW to encourage member councils to organise inclusive events and to ensure the events can take place “at council facilities safely for performers and attendees”.  Councillor Cox seems to take issue with that.

Temper tantrum?

Speaking to his motion, Councillor Cox did not seem to feel it necessary to justify his objection to such events. Instead the main part of his stated argument seemed to be his chagrin that motion 58 was considered by LGNSW while “...we didn’t get to items that this council had put up … instead we were stuck debating this”.

So it seems this motion is motivated in part by Cox’s temper tantrum - at the expense of children of the Hills Shire and inflicting further harm on already marginalised minorities.

There were calls of “shame” from the public gallery but both Councillors Cox and Blue sought to deflect criticism by claiming that “the Hills Shire Council is an inclusive council”.  And the motion in part states that council “supports the rights of every individual who is eligible to participate in Council events and programs”.  Of course it would be problematic, legally, for them to say or do otherwise.

But they cannot claim inclusivity when the motion that they supported explicitly prevents Council from hosting a whole genre of inclusive events, with the result being that the range of events hosted by council necessarily fails short of being inclusive.  There is a world of difference between not scheduling an event of a particular type and codifying its prohibition.

Councillor Blue identified a range of other worthy council priorities. “These are the areas that residents say are their top priorities … so that is what I believe this council should do” he said, failing to see the irony of spending 38 minutes of a 60 minute meeting on an unnecessary matter of ignorant dog-whistling cooked up by his colleague, Councillor Cox, that was totally unconnected with those priorities.

“...evil, devious motion…”

Thankfully there was a lawyer (and current UN Human Rights Officer) on hand to speak some truths to Councillor Cox & cronies. Castle Hill resident Melinda Ching Simon addressed the council (* see note).  Speaking powerfully about her personal experiences of being “othered”, she decried the motion as an attempt “to weaponise, misinform and scaremonger against a simple and profoundly important act of book-reading to a child.”

Ms Ching Simon said the motion was a “direct attack on education and frankly a proxy attack on the trans and queer community”, concluding that it was “an evil, devious motion that should be rejected”.

“Real evil,” she said “exists in the shadows, it exists in the dark, it doesn’t exist in colourful bright, transparent, loving community spaces, which is exactly what Dragtime Stories tries to create.”

“...wholesome and delightful…”

Councillors Tracey and Kasby, commendably, spoke against the motion.  Noting that the proponents of the motion must never have attended a Drag Queen Storytime event,Councillor Kasby declared “there is nothing sexual about Drag Queen Storytime.”

“Drag storytime is a  celebration of inclusion, of diversity, imagination and acceptance …There are no sexual overtones, it is age appropriate, child-friendly, completely wholesome and delightful,” she continued.

Despite these interventions, the motion was carried overwhelmingly 10-2.  Councillors Tracey and Kasby voted against it but every other councillor present shamefully supported this unnecessary and utterly repugnant and hurtful motion.

Included amongst those voting FOR were Councillors Hay and Burton (both Labor).  We would suppose that fact might cause more than a little disquiet amongst some of the Hills Shire Labor rank and file and amongst many current or potential Labor voters.  No doubt many Liberal voters will also be concerned.

It is perhaps not surprising that council chambers are arranged to be very inward looking.  Councillors are seated in a circle, with the public “gallery” consisting of a few chairs  arranged in a small space that places it behind the backs of many of the councillors and that serves to exclude the public.  Nevertheless, the noise suggested that a healthy crowd attended and they made their disapproval heard and were not put off by Councillor Cox’s assertion that council meetings are “not for people to participate.”

It is worth noting also that, to the best of our knowledge, local community media outlets, including Hills To Hawkesbury News, failed to report on this matter at all.  There were reports by the ABC and by the Hills Shire Times, however, to add to a frighteningly long list of bad news stories about our council in this term.

Reprise

Councillor Blue sought to continue the fight at the February 20 meeting.  He moved that council suspend standing orders and then took the opportunity to launch an attack and implicit threat against Councillor Kasby in connection with the debate at the previous meeting.

After the February 6 meeting Councillor Kasby made a social media post to inform the community about council’s decision.  In our opinion the post was measured and accurate.

But Councillor Blue took exception and questioned whether the post “upholds” the decision of council.  This is a reference to section 232(1)(f) of the Local Government Act which requires councillors “to uphold and represent accurately the policies and decisions of the governing body.”

We are aware that this section of the act has previously been used as a threat against councillors that criticise council decisions - in the Hills Shire and elsewhere - and the threat has succeeded on occasions in silencing such criticism.  Councillor Blue’s use of the word “uphold” clearly constituted a threat to anybody aware of this provision in the Local Government Act and the ways in which it has been misused.

We refer Councillor Blue to the NSW Office of Local Government’s own Councillor Handbook, which states:

“The requirement to uphold the policies and decisions of the council should be read in the context of the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. In practical terms, councillors remain free to speak about the policies and decisions of the council but they must accept and abide by them and must not misrepresent them.”

In our opinion, Councillor Kasby’s post is entirely consistent with this advice.

To her credit, Councillor Kasby weathered the attack with cool and calm aplomb but without giving ground. The social media post remains accessible and has not been edited since February 7.  Let us hope that no further action has arisen or will arise against her from this.

As for Councillor Blue - he spent a further six minutes of council meeting time (plus his own preparation time) pursuing this matter -  which, by his own declaration, is not amongst his residents top priorities - and, in so doing, inflicting further and very much undeserved hurt on members of the community.

Roll Call

These are the councillors that voted for the repugnant motion at the February 6 meeting:

• Mayor Dr P Gangemi, Liberal

• Clr F De Masi, Liberal, West Ward

• Clr V Ellis, Liberal, North Ward

• Clr M Blue, Liberal, North Ward

• Clr J Cox, Liberal, East Ward

• Clr R Jethi, Liberal, East Ward

• Clr J Brazier, Liberal, Central Ward

• Clr R Boneham, Liberal, West Ward

• Clr A Hay OAM, Labor, Central Ward

• Clr Dr B Burton, Labor, West Ward

It is in all our interests to seek to build a more inclusive and tolerant society.  Sometimes doing so requires generational change, which is why activities such as Drag Queen Storytime are so important in fostering a mindset of tolerance and inclusion from the earliest years.

The councillors listed above seek to obstruct that generational change.  In September this year we will have an opportunity for generational change in our council.  Let it be so.  Let us make it so.

Note:

* While MS Ching Simon was able to address council on February 6, it is worth noting that it will no longer be possible for community members to address council on a Notice of Motion, following the adoption at the very next meeting of council’s new Code of Meeting Practice.  Council’s mission to exclude and silence the community has passed another despicable milestone.