I’m starting a HUMAN RIGHTS PODCAST

As many of you know, I’ve been involved with Amnesty International QLD/NNSW since the beginning of 2018, as an intern/office volunteer and the media & communications team leader…

As the media and communications team leader, I was trying to develop a media strategy for the second half of the year, and I decided I wanted my team to branch out into the wider community, conduct more interviews, and create more original content… but then I saw a gap, that I though needed filling. While we could share this content on our regional social media platforms, I wanted to be able to reach a broader audience (because they people we interview are super inspiring and can teach activists a lot of tips/tricks,) and so I came up with the idea of a podcast for Amnesty International Australia activists.

With the help of one of my team members, Izzy, we sat down and started planning the podcast. We called it “Activist Connect” and the aim of the podcast is to engage, educate, entertain, and connect Amnesty Activists across the country.

For our first episode, we sat down with Shankar, Amnesty’s lead refugee campaigner to hear about his own experience as a refugee coming to Australia, and all about Amnesty’s #MyNewNeighbour campaign, calling for a fairer community sponsorship program for those seeking protection in Australia. We also talk about tips and tricks for community campaigning, and heard from @amnestymaroochydoreabout how they are bringing the My New Neighbour campaign to their community.

The podcast is currently available on soundcloud.com/amnesty-activist-connect and YouTube.

Fighting Poverty in the Fashion Industry with Oxfam

The Oxfam Change Initiative brings together youth leaders and supports them over a 6 month training program in campaign strategy and community organising. As a 2018 Change Initiative Youth Leader, I worked on Oxfam’s What She Makes campaign, calling on big brands to pay the women who make our clothes a living wage, so they can break the cycle of poverty.

I started the Oxfam Change Initiative back in April with a group of amazing girls passionate about changing the world. We first met at our induction and instantly got along well, and after our induction we met at the Brisbane Oxfam office fortnightly for our workshops. The workshops covered: Campaign Strategy, Tactics and Community Organising, Campaign Project Management, Events and Actions, Values, Framing and Messaging, Leadership and Team-Building, Conversations for Change, and Digital Campaigning. We also had an overnight retreat where we learnt more important skills, heard from the What She Makes campaign lead, contributed to the next stage of the campaign, and worked on the action plans for the event or activity we were each organising for the campaign.

The event I organised as part of the campaign was a workshop that aimed to 1. teach people about the issue, 2. encourage some discussion, 3. encourage them to reflect and express their views, 4. provide practical help in learning more/taking action. The workshop was held at a cafe boardroom, with brunch included. We called the event Breakfast of Changemakers

You can see how the event went in my vlog:

After the event, I put together a booklet that summarised everything we discussed, (including what we learnt from the wonderful guest speaker,) provided some practical tips and tricks on how to have meaningful conversations with family and friends to help raise awareness about the issue, and how to remain engaged in the campaign. You can check out the booklet here.

We all buy clothes, so we should all use our power as customers to tell companies we care about what she makes, and ask companies to pay the women who make our clothes a living wage. You can learn more about Oxfam’s What She Makes campaign at whatshemakes.oxfam.org.au/

Are you morally obligated to help the world’s poor?

One of the most influential books I have read about poverty, possibly because I read it at a relatively young age, was The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty by one of my favourite philosophers, Peter Singer. Singer wrote The Life You Can Save (first published in 2009) to address our current response to the issue of world poverty, demonstrating that we are not doing enough as individuals, which is ethically indefensible. I have always been interested in issues relating to poverty, and from a young age have wondered what my obligations towards those living in poverty are as a privileged individual living in Australia.

SINGER’S ARGUMENT

Singer, a renowned utilitarian, presents his argument in the first chapters of the book for why we are in fact morally obligated to help the worlds poor. He uses the example of a child drowning in a pond, and asserts that if you saw a child drowning in a lake and you were in a position to save them, you should do so. According to Singer, if you are in a position to save a life without sacrificing something equally as important, you are morally obligated to do so, and a child halfway across the world is no different (to a child dying in front of you), just because you can’t see them. Here is a breakdown of Singer’s argument:

Premise 1: It is bad that people should suffer from a lack of clean drinkable water, basic healthcare, food security, and shelter.

Premise 2: If you are in a position to prevent something bad from happening without having to sacrifice something equally as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Premise 3: By giving money to humanitarian aid agencies you can prevent the suffering and death of someone from lack of clean drinkable water, basic healthcare, food security, and shelter, without having to sacrifice something equally important.

Conclusion: Therefore if you do not give anything to humanitarian aid agencies you are doing something ethically bad.

This video by PBS Crash Course does a great job of explaining Singer’s argument, and a popular objection to it by Garrett Hardin:

COMMON OBJECTIONS TO OUR OBLIGATION TO THE WORLD’S POOR

You aren’t well-off enough to give your money to the world’s poor: This is a very common objection to the notion that we are morally obligated to give to the world’s poor: you aren’t rich enough to have heaps of money to donate to the world’s poor. But as Singer so eloquently puts it in his book: if you have the money to buy yourself a bottle of water, a juice or a soda, when you have access to free, clean drinkable water from the tap, then you do have at least some money that you could be giving to the world’s poor.

We should help the struggling people in our own communities before helping others: Yes, it is true that pretty much every developed society still has people in their own communities who are struggling in some way. Something that I really don’t like to do is compare the struggles of people who are in completely different situations, but I feel as though when it comes to this argument we can still constructively compare the two situations and establish which situation should be addressed first without devaluing the struggles of the other. While Singer states in his book that there are 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty (what the UN defines as living on less than $1.25US a day) and these are the people who should be helped first, I prefer to refer to Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. Maslow’s hierarchy is a 5 tier pyramid that describes the 5 levels of psychological need for humans, and each level can’t be achieved until the level below has been first. The first tier describes physiological needs such as shelter, food, and water, and the second tier is the need for security and safety, whether it be financial, from natural disasters, the military, etc. By comparing the needs of the world’s poor with those in our own societies and seeing where they fit in Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, we can then establish who ought to be be helped first. Regardless of where people come from, whether it be our own community or a community half way across the world, the people who don’t even have their physiological needs fulfilled are the ones we ought to help first.

Objections to the benefit of humanitarian aid: It is fair to believe that humanitarian aid is not the best way to go about alleviating world poverty, when disadvantaged communities and developing countries should instead focus on building a stable economy through things like trade, and developing more stable governments and social systems. While this is a very important point, this doesn’t devalue the importance of humanitarian aid in the fight to alleviate poverty, since humanitarian aid saves lives. While it is important to build stable economies, governments, and societies, it is equally as important to save lives while this is happening.

It’s Not Fair: Why should you give some of your hard earned money to the world’s poor when there are people far better off than you are who won’t do the same, that isn’t fair? While it may not be fair, morality isn’t about fairness. You are responsible for your own actions, and just because other people aren’t willing to save a life, that doesn’t mean it’s okay for you not to save a life either.

Why should I have to sacrifice things that bring me joy: It can seem unfair that you might have to sacrifice small luxuries that bring you joy and add value to your life, especially when you’ve worked hard to earn them. It might be easy for you to say “I’d rather buy new shoes than give my money to the poor,” but we shouldn’t think of aid as just giving our money away, we should think of humanitarian aid as saving a life. Could you still justify saying “I’d rather buy new shoes than save someone’s life.”

THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE

The book itself goes further into giving to the worlds poor than just our moral obligations. Singer also addresses other philosophical considerations, he describes the practical obstacles to giving, and discusses problems associated with giving to certain charities. Singer also offers a plan for readers to figure out how much and how best to give to different charities. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about what we can do as individuals to act now to end world poverty.

In a recent youtube video, I shared my thoughts on the book, how it (amongst other things) influenced my passion for sustainable development, and give a little insight into the things I do as an activist for Campaign for Australian Aid; campaigning for cross-party commitment for Australia to increase its foreign aid budget.

Let’s Talk About SWERF

You may have never heard of term Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminism, or SWERF, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a type of institutionalised sexism that you have in fact been socialised into. Institutionalised sexism is a type of unjustified negative behaviour against women or men as members of a social category, and sex worker exclusionary radical feminism is the type of institutionalised sexism and oppression that women (and men) face in the sex industry. It affects prostitutes, escorts, strippers, sugar babies, webcam models, and porn stars, amongst any other sex related profession.

NOTE: I have used the word sex to describe any intimate or sexual activity that may be performed by a sex worker, not always the act of sex itself. Also, although SWERF is an issue for both male and female sex workers, being a female dominated industry most of the information provided focuses on the issues women in the sex industry face.

What exactly is SWERF?

The term SWERF was coined to match that of trans exclusionary radical feminism, because their ideologies both overlap. They are both feminism subgroups that follow a prescriptive, normative approach to feminism: while trans exclusionary radical feminism is associated with judging women and telling them what to do with their gender, sex worker exclusionary radical feminism is associated with judging women and telling them what to do with their body (generally in exchange for money). Although both men and women work in the sex industry, it is still a female dominated industry, so women are mostly the target of sex worker exclusionary radical feminism.

It’s not really “radical” at all…

The actual term sex worker exclusionary radical feminism often causes a dilemma, since many people who would be considered “SWERFs” aren’t actually radical, but are in fact more conservative in their values and actions towards sex. Although the term contains the word “radical” in its name, sex worker exclusive radical feminism is more reactionary than it is radical. Reactionary positions are ones which intend to revert society to more traditional, conservative values. It is a commonly held view by most feminists (particularly third wave) that women should be free to have an interest and partake in whichever sexual acts they please. SWERFS however, take their own perspective on sexuality one step further by dictating what sexual activity is acceptable or “morally right/good” for others to perform. Nonetheless, I don’t believe getting caught up in SWERF rhetoric will actually do any justice to the issue.

What are the signs of SWERF?

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminism is a type of oppression that can be manifested in several ways. Simple comments made to your friend along the lines of “wow, you look like a prostitute,” is an oppressive statement since in this context the word “prostitute” is given a negative connotation, which in turn devalues those women who choose to work as prostitutes. If you have any preconceived negative beliefs and attitudes towards sex workers, you are probably showing signs of SWERF. Beliefs that sex workers are dirty, they are exploiting themselves, objectifying themselves for money, or they are somehow less deserving of rights than a person working in any other industry, are all types of sex worker exclusionary radical feminism. Everyday instances of SWERF can also encompass bullying and oppression that is known as whorephobia.

How do these “feminists” justify SWERF?

Many people who show signs of SWERF otherwise consider themselves feminists. Most feminists who object to the rights and notion of sex work usually claim one (or both) of two arguments to justify their discrimination towards sex workers. The first of these objections to sex work is based on the belief that sex work is sexual objectification of women, and the second is that it perpetuates sexual violence towards women. Although I will address these issues in more detail below, it is important to note that SWERF doesn’t actually address either of these issues that it claims to stand for. Instead of individuals exercising their right not to sexualise themselves by partaking in sexual activities that they wouldn’t feel comfortable doing, SWERFs take it one step further by telling others that they should feel/do the same, and instead of focusing on the sexual violence that human trafficked people in parts of the world may face, SWERFs neglect this and and instead try to prevent (an often non existent) sexual violence towards sex workers who have freely chosen their profession.

Common Misconceptions About Sex Workers

Before I really delve into the issues associated with SWERF, I would first like to address some of the common misconceptions that people have towards those who work in the sex industry. If you have any preconceived negative ideas about sex workers (don’t worry, that was me once upon a time too,) this might help you get a clearer understanding of what sex work is actually like. Many of these misconceptions are based on outdated moralistic views that no longer apply in contemporary societies, but have somehow managed to persist and be socialised from generation to generation.

Sex workers don’t have a choice?

It’s a common misconception that women or men work in the sex industry because they “don’t have a choice,” they “don’t have any other skills,” or they’re “forced to sell their body,” but for a vast majority of sex workers in the developed world, this certainly isn’t the case. Sex workers work in the sex industry because they want to, for a huge array of reasons, including but certainly not limited to: they enjoy the art of sex, they enjoy the money, or they enjoy the flexibility and lifestyle that comes with being a sex worker. Pretty much any reason that people work any kind of job can apply to sex work. For many sex workers, sex work is a means to an end, so they are only in the industry until they achieve a certain goal, whether it be a financial goal or a personal goal. But for many women and men sex work is a career, that like any type of career involves skill, talent, dedication, and years of experience.

Note: If someone is coerced to work in the sex industry or forced to, this is an issue of human/sex trafficking, which is not the same as being a sex worker.

Sex workers “sell their body” for money?

If you think that sex workers “sell their body” anymore than a man who does labour or construction work sells his body, then your view of labour is clouded by an outdated and oppressive moralistic view of sexuality. Carpenters sell their bodies for labour. Models sell their bodies to be photographed. Lawyers sell their body for their knowledge. If you have a job you are essentially selling your body. What part of your body you are selling shouldn’t matter, whether it’s your brawn, boobs, or brains.

Sex work is “wrong?”

Sex work is a legitimate job in both the legal and moral senses of the word. There’s nothing wrong with providing a service and getting paid for it (that’s what all jobs do) and there’s nothing wrong with having sex (we are all products of sex.) Suddenly when the two things are combined it’s “sad” “disgusting” or “wrong?” What is it about sex work that is apparently so much worse than any other kind of work? (I’ll address the ethics of sex work in more detail below.)

Sex work is dirty?

There is a belief that sex work harms people through the risk of spreading disease, and while STDs are a very valid problem, it isn’t an issue for sex workers since sex work is safe, clean, and regulated.

Sex workers ruin relationships?

Another common misconception is that sex workers ruin relationships/marriages, since many committed or married men get involved with sex workers, often without their partner knowing. According to Lana Jade, a high end Sydney escort in her Daily Mail interview, “men see sex workers for no one particular reason, some are lacking intimacy in their relationships, perhaps their wives don’t want to have sex or don’t have the time, but they still love their wives so to fill the sexual quota they need they choose, a no strings attached paid encounter.” To blame a sex worker for “ruining a relationship” is ridiculous. When a sex worker interacts with a client, whether it be sexually, intimately, or even just emotionally (no one of these is any better or worse than the other,) they are simply doing their job. Their job is to provide a service to the client, regardless of the client’s own situation. That client’s relationship isn’t ruined by the sex worker, that relationship was ruined when they made the conscious decision to go behind their partner’s back and hide something from them, regardless of whether a sex worker was involved or not.

Problems with SWERF

Now that we have addressed some of the most basic and common misconceptions that people have towards sex workers, we can delve into the problems that are associated with sex worker exclusionary radical feminism, and why the discrimination and oppression of sex workers is wrong. In order to move forward from our ways of SWERF and into a future where sex workers are treated with the same rights and respect as all workers, we first need to address a few problems with SWERF:

Sex workers aren’t objectifying/exploiting themselves

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminism is strongly based on the view that sex work should be frowned upon because it objectifies and/or exploits women. While I was doing some research on SWERF, I came across an article on a popular feminist blog refuting the validity of sex work, for the reason below.

“First, there is no such thing as “sex work.” Prostitution and pornography are not “work,” insofar as “work” does not involve exploiting people’s bodily integrity (and any job that does is just as evil). Therefore using the term “sex work” assumes as its premise the validity of the exploitation of women’s bodily integrity.”

This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. Now, as I addressed earlier, sex workers don’t “sell their bodies” anymore than any other worker sells their body. But when it comes to the sexualisation of women’s bodies, I think there are a few important distinctions that needs to be made.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the sexualisation of a woman. Nothing. Problems with the sexualisation of women arise when the healthy sexuality of a woman is turned into objectification or exploitative sexualisation. According to the American Psychological Association (APA) there are four factors that set objectification or exploitative sexualisation apart from healthy sexuality.

1. A person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

Often when women are sexualised, they are seen as less intelligent, but this isn’t actually the case. There is no correlation between how much a woman chooses to sexualise herself and how intelligent (or any other characteristic) she is, this is an outdated belief that we as a society need to abolish. When someone else imposes the value of a woman based solely upon the degree to which she sexualises herself, this becomes exploitative (not by the woman herself, but those who are imposing this value onto her.)

2. A person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

The sexualisation of a woman becomes unhealthy and objectifying when we begin to equate physical attractiveness to notions like being sexy. This is a problem for two reasons, firstly, it suggests that a woman’s appearance is the only thing her sexiness should be based upon, rather than her intelligence, or other characteristics of her personality. Secondly, it suggests that women must have certain physical traits in order to be considered attractive and sexy. In most cases, sex workers rely on good communication skills, intelligence, and other personality traits to be successful with their clients, and sex workers are all incredibly diverse in both appearance and personality, so sex work avoids being exploitative in this sense.

3. A person is made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making;

This is, at its core, sexual objectification. Sexual objectification in any situation is never okay, and it is a misconception that sex workers objectify themselves, but we now know this isn’t true. Sex workers are not forced into anything, and they have complete autonomy over decision making, activities, and situations that affect them.

4. Sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

There is a fundamental difference between an autonomous woman who chooses to sexualise herself (like a sex worker) which is okay, and the nonconsensual sexualising, objectifying or exploiting (of women collectively,) which is not okay.

So, provided that sex work is practiced in a way which avoids these factors (which most sex work does,) one cannot argue that sex work is in any way objectifying or exploitative of women.

Why society doesn’t like sex work

On a micro scale, it is commonly viewed that many women dislike sex workers because they see them as a direct competition, particularly against their own partners and husbands. Many women also feel threatened by the fact that someone else is making a profit selling something that they often give away for free. Men dislike sex workers because they don’t like the thought of paying for something that they wish they could achieve naturally.

But on a macro scale, why do we as a society dislike sex work? From a sociological perspective, it is clear to see that sex work poses a threat to the values that our society was once built upon. Sex work predominantly challenges our views and values toward sex, and the institution of family.

Sex: Sex work challenges the traditional views of the role that sex should play in our lives. The views that sex should be between a man and a woman, it should be between people who love one another, with the ultimate goal of a sexual relationship to raise children to carry society forward.

Family: Our society was built upon a strong notion of family, and more specifically, the nuclear family. Father’s had a duty to provide for their family, and mothers had the role of creating and raising children in a stable family environment.

Today, many people practice sex for reasons other than creating a family and raising children. We partake in sex because it is enjoyable, it’s a part of human nature to have sexual desires and there is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing pleasure. When sex work becomes widely accepted, it means that as a society we are moving beyond and leaving behind some of these traditional views and values. A man partaking in paid sexual services is expending effort outside the expectation of being a husband and father, since he is not spending all of his time and resources creating, providing for, and raising his own children. A woman turning to sex work is is expanding beyond her role of being a wife and mother, and as a sex worker she becomes one less young woman in the marriage pool for men. The acceptance of sex work certainly doesn’t mean that these things aren’t valued anymore, but it means that they aren’t as important as they once were.

Furthermore, accepting promiscuity within society defeats many sexist assumptions towards women that we may still have in our society. A woman who can have an emotionally healthy relationship with multiple sexual partners means she can make choices for herself, which goes against women being the sexual property of or belonging to a single man. It suggests that like men who have strong, animalistic sexual desires, women have strong sexual instincts too. Promiscuity and the notion of “slut shaming” has often been an easy tool for members of society to silence women, but that statement “what a slut!” doesn’t actually have any moral groundings to be considered an insult.

Sex work is not immoral

Provided that sex work remains non exploitative and non coercive as discussed above, there are no logical reasons to support the claim that sex work is immoral. The only way sex work can be considered immoral is if the notions of “sex” and/or “work” are considered to be morally wrong… and most people would agree they aren’t. Any views that sex work is immoral probably arise from outdated moralistic views of sex and sexuality, that originate from our once theocratic past.

Even though secular views on sex are now commonly accepted, let’s dispel a few misconceived arguments as to why sex (and related activities,) in the context of sex work might still be considered wrong:

Sex should be between two people who love one another: Let’s assume that having sex with someone that you are not committed to is wrong, at most what follows from this is that sex with multiple partners is immoral, and this becomes an argument against sex, not sex work itself. Let’s face it, unless you’re strictly religious, there is no reason you should have to prescribe to the belief that having multiple sexual partners is wrong.

Sex work harms relationships/marriages: As discussed earlier, sex work doesn’t harm relationships. People being deceitful to their partners is what harms a relationship, not the actual sex; sex is just a byproduct of lying and deceiving.

Sex work encourages using sex as means to fill an emotional void: This belief is based on an unjustified belief that it isn’t possible to have multiple sex partners and be emotionally healthy. Although this claim isn’t actually based upon any philosophical/psychological research, if we do in fact assume it to be true, there isn’t any reason for us to moralise such behaviour. There is no reason on which to base the belief that using sex to fill an emotional void is inherently any less moral than taking up knitting to fill an emotional void.

Overindulgence in sex is wrong: There are no valid arguments to support the claim that an overindulgence in sex is wrong. Sex isn’t in short supply, so an overconsumption of sex can’t be considered wrong for fear that a shortage might ensue. Any other claim that overindulging in sex is wrong must be based on the premise that sex should be between two committed people, it shouldn’t be used to fill an emotional void, or that the act of sex is sacred, which we now know aren’t morally sound claims.

Moving forward into a world without SWERF

In order for sex work to be considered a valid profession, we need to understand why it is so important:

Need: Intimacy and sexual desire is a part of human nature. We are biologically designed to find sex pleasurable, and there is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing things that bring us pleasure.

Partake: Many of us partake in the services of sex workers, even if it is as simple as watching porn. Sex work offers a release for people who may not have any other means of fulfilling their need for intimacy and sexual activity, with people who are willing to participate and be a part of it.

Demand: As a subsequent result of our need for intimacy and sexual activities, and the fact that many people rely on the work of sex workers to partake in such activities, the demand for the services of sex workers is very high.

In summary, sex workers assist in fulfilling a basic human need that is detrimental for many members of society. We as both individuals and a collective society need to move forward past these negative, preconceived ideas we may have about sex workers, and realise that the discrimination and oppression of sex workers is not only unjustified, but morally indefensible. Sex worker’s rights are human rights.

Women’s Rights Activism in 2018

As a volunteer and activist for Amnesty International, my view of women’s rights is largely influenced by the fact that women’s rights are human rights.

I think that is something that people forget in contemporary western societies. There is a lot of negative stigma behind the women’s rights movement, and identifying yourself as a “feminist” is often followed by (almost-always unjustified) criticism. As Amnesty International states; despite improvements in the lives of women and girls as a result of the international women’s rights movement, many continue to experience violence, sexism, misogyny and online abuse. Over one weekend, I organised two actions with Amnesty QLD/NNSW for women’s rights activism (and of course I vlogged my entire weekend to share with people.)

The first of these was at Our Walk For Change, a march that was organised by a group of high school students in Brisbane in response to the rape and murder of a 22 year old Melbourne comedian, Eurydice Dixon. I came up with the idea to let people know about Amnesty, and that they advocate for the rights of women and girls around the world. My idea was to take little cutout polaroid-looking photo frames, for people to take selfies with, and share on their Instagram stories with the hashtag, #solidarityselfie.

The other action I organised was an interview at a Women’s Abortion Rights Campaign (WARC) Brisbane picket, to decriminalise abortion in QLD. International human rights law clearly spells out that decisions about your body are yours alone – bodily autonomy is a human right. As women, decisions that are our right, like whether or when to have children have become a matter for the government to control. It’s my body, and therefore my right to decide. With the help of one of my media/communications volunteers, I interviewed Hope from the Women’s Abortion Rights Campaign, who discussed the need for abortion to be free, safe, and on demand: “what we need in future is for abortion to be covered by public health… so that women of all backgrounds have access to that right.”

You can watch the interview in my vlog:

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY 2018

International Women’s Day is celebrated annually on March 8th. Traditionally, it celebrates the cultural, political, and social achievements of women throughout history and across nations.

So, how did spend International Women’s Day as a Human Rights, Animal Liberation, and Sustainable Development Activist?.. 

Sustainable Development

In the sustainable development sphere, I celebrated International Women’s Day through my work with Campaign for Australian Aid, a campaign backed by Australia’s aid and development groups to get Australia to increase its foreign aid budget (Australian Aid is currently at an all-time low!)

As a video producer for the campaign, I made a video to celebrate women who are leading their communities towards the sustainable development goals. You can check out the video here.

Animal Liberation

As an animal liberation activist, I attended the Women Against Dairy memorial march in Brisbane City. The march sought to bring attention to the most oppressed females in the animal kingdom- dairy cows, and I went to do my bit to help fight the sexual politics of animal farming.

Human Rights

The next day, (after minimal sleep thanks to working all night) I went to an event in Brisbane to do media coverage as an Amnesty International activist. The event was the One Billion Rising Flash mob, that was raising awareness about domestic violence against women, where I interviewed Annie, a dancer, and Belinda, a social worker and manager from a domestic violence organisation.

You can see exactly what my weekend of International Women’s Day activism looked like in the vlog below. I hope that you learn a thing or two, or you are inspired to take action in your own community!