Great article, Shane.

How do you reckon the homosexual advance defence (HAD) plays out in this? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10175

When political leaders claim to feel "threatened" by homosexuals, is this an endorsement of unequal punishment for crimes against homosexuals?

In his 2004 paper http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n1/golder111.html UNSW academic Ben Golder argues that "the male heterosexual body is inscribed by and within the narratives of the law in a particular way – as a bounded and impermeable unit – and that this inscription underpins the legal violence of the HAD." So Tony Abbott is not just expressing a personal opinion, he's also referencing a body of law that licences heterosexual men to commit violent acts upon homosexuals if they feel "threatened". To my knowledge, the recommendations of the 1998 NSW Attorney General's Working Party investigating the homosexual advance defence http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/clrd/ll_clrd.nsf/vwPrint1/CLRD_had have not been implemented, so in NSW at least, this defence is still available.

If TV replays of Abbott in his budgie smugglers is not a threat of weapons of mass seduction, we need a new charter in the UN.

Abbott is observed a classic and persistent protagonist of straight-bashing, he straight bashes women who would dare contemplate the blasphemy of abortion, Indigenous Australians who ask their culture be respected, those alarmists who would dare deceive the public with the threat of global warming.

Check out the extensive posts on the thread; ‘Land of Opportunity; but not for monoculturalists,’ and you may observe the same human malaise that’s been around as long as gays have. Bigotry.

Maintain the rage brothers!

However, in enlightened advanced western societies in the 21st century, we’re supposed to be above that aren’t we? Unfortunately not it seems, for in the thread I refer to, not only are the banal, twisted, and moronic, bigots you find in every walk of life, evident as congregating on this and similar threads, like parasites to a corpse, those that claim entitlement to the realms of higher academic enlightenment, are observed accommodating of their acceptance of such malevolent potential.

As a straight, ethnic migrant, the illness of bigotry plaguing my demographic, is parallel to yours, there is no discernible difference of the underlying dynamics. However, as the author of this article perceptively observes, the majority of people are reasonable and tolerant. They simply need to be activated to deny this scourge that it may be kept in check and balance.

This translates to requirement of their activism for corresponding denial, of latent and pragmatic protagonists of this aberration, such as Abbott. Somewhere in there he may be a sweet guy, I confess I don’t know, for alike other ethnic migrants I’ve been too busy looking over my shoulder for potential crazed rednecks Abbott assisted entrenching of their malevolent attitudes, in the years of the Howard era.

I'm not an Abbott fan but I'm also no fan of the way Tony Abbott's opponents are overstating what he has said for political millage.

I like many others are thoroughly tired of politicians who won't say what they really think, those who will only directly say what is considered politically safe. I've not made up my mind if Abbott is giving us a sanitized version of his views but I saw the interview where Tony made those comments and took them as an honest admission that he is not all that comfortable with some aspects of homosexuality. I suspect that there are a lot of people who because of upbringing find homosexuality unsettling but accept that others are different.

If Tony Abbott is threatened but willing to accept the differences then great, if he is threatened and wants his fears put to rest by law then it's a problem.

He at the same time claimed to have changed some earlier views and claimed to have a number of gay friends. A man who is honest with himself perhaps (but I've not made up my mind).

In some ways possibly a lot better than other politicians who could not or will not admit to any such misgivings but refuse to act when it comes to true equality in law for homosexuals. If this is about a federal leader of a political party being willing to be honest about how he feels and doing so in a way that did not appear to shift the blame to gays then I'd much prefer it to the alternative.

For those inclined to misrepresent Tony Abbott to undermine him my guess is that doing will harm the causes of those opposed to him more than it harms him.

R0bert

Yes a good article.

The transcript of the interview trying to cast Tony A. as a home loving mopsy - yuk - nearly made me hurl.

Ngarmada" <"Somewhere in there he may be a sweet guy...">

I would say there probably is. The trouble isn't with individuals. If his missus is happy to pretend that she is the last stop of authority in the household and to bask in the warmth of his reflected glory and of being the dutiful "good woman", then that's one thing. He may be very generous in sharing with her the authority and power granted him automatically by having a Y chromosome and a privileged background.

The difference is that other men who also have automatic privilege and heterosexual orientation are not necessarily kind and generous; women and children in their lives must remain dependent on their beneficence. Any who don't conform to heterosexual values must be despised and devalued without regard for their humanness or personal attributes.

The wider implications of this imbalance of power and influence are that white heterosexual males are authorities on determining what's 'normal' and ok - and everyone else must comply or be cast as abnormal or in some way despicable.

It isn't Tony Abbott personally that's the problem but what he works so hard to impose on others and the complete indifference with which he does it.

I tend to think, like RObert. that this is a bit of a beat up.

If you look at Abbott's other comments on this issue he speaks about the rights of all, gay or otherwise, to find happiness, committment and love.

Abbott does not phrase as we would like but he is being true to his own feelings. I don't think that his own discomfort equates to a wish for harm or injustice against gay people, nor leniency for gay bashers.

Glenn Milne on last week's ABC Insiders commented that Abbott had confided to him that his discomfort with homosexuality derived from what he witnessed in the seminary while training to be a priest.

The BIG ISSUE is can Abbott's, with his strong Catholic upbringing, make decisions in the interests of a secular democratic Australia on issues like gay marriage, chaplains in schools and abortion?

It is altogether possible for a politician to put aside his own personal views, whether Abbott has improved on that account even with his commitment to reinvent himself, only time will tell.

Now let’s see, we have one poster who observes no potential for scepticism, of politicians who prodigally change their views in complete reversal, repeatedly, and another who is confident in the wink, nudge, ‘boys’ back room confidences shared between politicians and political journalists.

You have to enquire, if those pursuing national leadership are observed repeatedly reversing their policy views, how did they get it so wrong in the first place? Not exactly inspiring for confidence in a national leader?

In terms of critical analysis, I’m having a bit of trouble with the credibility of such bases for intelligent consideration. If this keeps up I’m concerned I may start pitying the rednecks.

I don't think that Tony Abbott is alone
in feeling threatened by gays. And to that end,
according to quite a few websites that I've
scrawled on the subject, they all seem to agree
that, Australia needs a national law prohibiting
discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and
gender identity.

As one website stated, "The Opposition Leader
can show leadership on this issue by publicly
committing the Coalition to support Federal
Anti-Discrimination Laws on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender identity."

However, I don't think that this will happen.
Mr Abbott is a devout Catholic and a practising
one. For him to separate his private belief
from his public office I imagine would be
extremely difficult.

Ngarmada, plenty of potential for skepticism. What I don't like is the politically motivated attempts to portray opposing views in the worst light.

I made it clear in my earlier post that I'm undecided about Abbott, his expression of "honest" views could mask much darker views but repeated beat up's by his opponents based on flimsy pretexts will do little except comfort those who already strongly dislike Abbott and leave the rest wondering how much of what we have been told about him by his opponents over the years is true.

If he is as bad as he is made out to be he will give himself away, the trick for you and others who feel threatened by him is to ensure that everyone else is not so tired of hearing you shout "wolf, wolf" when he does that it looks like another beat up.

R0bert

Politicians, alike Abbott, do not phase me RObert. I apply professional management critical analysis, and therefore ensure I am able to qualify my position before I comment. That allows me the advantage to disregard beat ups, and retain only contempt for ‘tricks.’ For noone may retain confidence in your viewpoint, if you do not apply integrity to reasoned and rational depth to debate.

Further, to the context of this article, the threat is not what Abbott is perceived to be, it is what he represents, and who he represents if he becomes PM. It is that assessment this article is speaking to, I concur is an important public debate. Alike every other poster, I am simply attempting to ensure the debate is not diverted with distracting information. Nothing personal RObert.

Ngaramda
I did not present as being 'confident' in back room nudge nudge wink winks as you put it, but merely relayed something from the program that may provide a reason (not an excuse) for Abbott's comments.

While your cynicism is understandable your comments about intelligent thinking and credibility is only undermined by your superiority complex.

It is not about politician's changing their views in the constant ebb and tide of opinion and electioneering, this is standard, but how they manage their personal biases or religiosity with policy objectives.

Politicians are human and there is no reason to assume what someone believed at 20 is where they end up. The continual emphasis over Abbott's comments is they distract from the big picture. Hopefully we are all mature enough to confine ourselves to policy objectives and ideology (what is left of it) rather than celebrity style media beat ups.

While not a Coalition supporter I do prefer the more honest style of Abbott than the contrived, bureaucratic insincerity of Rudd.

I agree with Foxy on this subject- Abbott originally trained to be a priest, and as such would have had an extremely conservative, bible-inspired, Catholic ideas to have even thought of that career pathway.

There is no way that such a man can ever completely separate his religious views from his political views.

I have no doubt at all that he feels 'threatened by gays' because he was conditioned to believe that they will burn in the fires of hell for their extreme sins in the ways they express their sexuality.

Tony Abbott should never be allowed to run this country, and I only believe he has got this far by supposedly changing his views on subjects such as abortion, single mothers, virginity and maternity leave.
A leopard never changes it's spots.

Great article.Really liked reading it. Enjoyed the last article this guy wrote as well.

I don't expect our PM to always be right; but I expect them to be rational. Unfortunately Rudd has shown himself far too committed to his 'moral crusade' to make sensible decisions on behalf of the people he is supposed to represent. Abbott seems to me to be more pragmatic; I have some hopes that if elected he may end up doing what will work rather than what his Sky Fairy tells him is the 'right' thing to do. But I could be totally wrong.

Anyway, I will vote for the first politician who pledges to run the country for the country's benefit according to evidence and common sense, and forget any stupid ideological commitments.

Suzie, a leopard never changes it's spots but human beings can and do.
I know my own views on a lot of topics have changed massively over time. I share the concern's about the degree of religious affiliation he has as he was reportedly getting regular advice from a catholic archbishop not so long ago.

Ngarmada, if it's not personal be a lot less free with terms like redneck. Perhaps if you have been less "busy looking over my shoulder for potential crazed rednecks" you might be more able to take an objective view of things. Rednecks do exist, but so do people with chips on their shoulders and a variety of skin tones not all of which are red.

R0bert

The issue is not whether one has feelings or beliefs, but the extent by which one allows ones personal beliefs to override one's duty to do the right thing and govern according to the norms and beliefs of the society.

“While not a Coalition supporter I do prefer the more honest style of Abbott than the contrived, bureaucratic insincerity of Rudd.” - Pelican

Well I would be interested to know how you would support that conclusion as a statement of fact. Unless of course integrity in debate for some reason does not apply to you, only others. That would be superiority would it not? As indicated by suzeonline, reason and rational argument is what this article is concerned with, not your biased ideological fanaticism.

RObert, while I appreciate your idealism of peace and love, I do tend to be a bit sceptical of politicians, that they demonstrate their practice as highly mercenary. e.g. whether you like him or hate him, Turnbull got shafted, like Nelson before him. If Abbott is elected the Liberals will resist response to climate change, and attempt to exploit global initiatives to remedy it, which is not rocket science to perceive from observation of these recent events.

If you observe the racist bigots who proliferate OLO, and take every opportunity to colonise threads on race or migrant issues with their venal and toxic malevolence, you may realise a balanced perspective on the subject to which this article addresses.

For doubtless there is a homophobic in your town, who shares the same malevolent bigotry and he’s coming your way. For a leading politician then, owing to his religious fundamentalist beliefs, to effectively scaremonger the public by potentially peddling a perception that indicates gays may be threats, I would suggest is a little irresponsible. Get out of the closet RObert, and into the real world.

"Well I would be interested to know how you would support that conclusion as a statement of fact. Unless of course integrity in debate for some reason does not apply to you, only others."

Are you for real?

It is a fact - I don't know how else to express it any other way. I prefer Abbott's style to Rudd's - simple fact. If I was lacking integrity I would lie and pretend I preferred Rudd's style just to appease you, but alas I cannot, even to assuage your ego.

Style preferences vary from one person to the next. Style preference is not the same as ideology.

I would rather Abbott articulate honestly his views than hide - that way we know what we are voting for (or not voting for in my case).

You are missing the point - despite Abbott's views on homosexuality what matters is how he represents the rights of others.

Abbott's admission that he feels threatened is not the same as homosexuals are threatening. Anyone in their right mind would know this is Abbott's issue - his own insecurity to deal with. It is not the same as a statement that homosexuals are out rampaging the streets and we should all be cowering under our beds.

Where is the homosexual rights to marry under the Rudd Government? I must have missed that one. There has been no new policy under Labor that legislates for gay marriage. That is a fact.

Many gay people I know were hoping that the a government would take a fresh and fairer look at this legislation.

Rudd has not come out on personal comments about gay marriage but he still has done nothing. See the similarity? Actions not words are what counts.

For someone who claims to despise hatred you are certainly filled with your own vitriole and self righteousness.

As for OLO, with only two exceptions I can think of, most posters have been highly supportive of homosexuality and the rights to marry so where your bigotry comments stem from seems more a liking for verbal combat than fact.

pelican nicely said.

Ngarmada, "to effectively scaremonger the public by potentially peddling a perception that indicates gays may be threats" as pelican has already pointed out there is a big difference between admitting to feeling threatened and scaremongering.

I saw the interview and saw little reason for anybody to see any implied threat from homosexuals in Abbott's words. It came across as an admission of a personal struggle in that area for Abbott. It can be tough to work through the fallout from a change in views. Been there done that and it's not always an easy transition.

Males and male political leaders are often chastised for not being more open about feelings, Tony Abbott appears to be someone who is quite open about his struggles and feelings. It could be an act but if it is I hope he keeps it up long enough to make it more acceptable for others to do the same.

I'm trying to work out if your "get out of the closet" comment to me was intended as a slur on your part. Normally the term is used to describe a gay person who keeps it hidden and used by homophobes to attack opponents. There are other possible meanings but in the context of this thread using that term for other meanings would be an odd choice. Is implying that someone is gay something you use as an insult?

R0bert

Congratulations Dennis/David, the infection has spread to another thread.

Pelican, your feigned posturing of upholding of integrity, is only dwarfed by your myopia. Like a selfish brat you cant get what you want on demand from the Rudd Govt, so you are either prepared to entertain negotiation with Abbott, or your political proclivity is toward his aberrant ideology.

To offer you a heads up perspective, within months he has double back flipped on his climate change policy, apparent as pursuing, if not manipulating, the support of his political colleagues for his original position. And on both occassions of his policy reversal, he claimed enlightenment and the associated integrity of transparency of his admissions.

Observing such prime indicator of his political intent, you suggest his admission of an inane fear of homosexuality, is witness and testament to his potential enlightenment on the issue, that will transcend his staunch fundamental catholic religious beliefs.

Well I have a reversal admission, that in fact your myopia is only dwarfed by your gullibility, that you may not only suggest your own belief in that naivety, you could expect others to oversight its incredulity.

‘Fessing up and submitting to public approval is currently a favoured political tactic for potential longer term political benefit, and there I agree, that it is consistent with ethical integrity, it is appropriate, if it is GENUINE. There’s the rub, with politicians its assessment will mostly be subjective.

In Abbotts’ case it just ‘out there’ as patently dubious.

blairbar, it is observed that you propagate your proclivity to latent colonial bigotry in yet another thread. Such venal and toxic malevolence towards reason and rational argument is what Ngarmada is concerned with, not your biased ideological fanaticism.

It is anticipated however that such criminality against both language and reason will inevitably be buried under a pile of pelican poop.

I advise you to have a hat or umbrella handy.

oops, pasted in the wrong link. The first link in my post above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10175#164954 should go to Nina Funnell's OLO article on the homosexual advance defence:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7863

It's interesting that Shane's article has prompted lots of discussion about the role of religious belief in public life, lots of specific comments about Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, but relatively little about the implications of what Abbott said.

>> You are missing the point - despite Abbott's views
>> on homosexuality what matters is how he represents
>> the rights of others.

Of course this is important, but with respect to the present article about Abbott's feeling threatened by homosexuals, it's not "the point" at all.

First, feeling "threatened" by homosexuals is ridiculously irrational, and Abbott is legitimising the irrationality.

Second, gender minorities are targets of violence and harrassment, generally by young men. A 2003 survey of inner-city Sydney gays and lesbians by the NSW Attorney General's Department found that "56% of the respondents reported having experienced one or more forms of homophobic abuse, harassment or violence in the past 12 months." http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/cpd/ll_cpd.nsf/vwFiles/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf/$file/Hide2BSafeExec.pdf Paradoxically, at the same time as being a haven for same-sex-attracted people, inner-city Sydney is the place where they are most likely to be victims of anti-gay violence and harrassment.

When heterosexual men feel "threatened" by homosexuals, it invariably works out worse for the gays than the straights. With his irresponsible comments, Abbott gives legitimacy to those who bash, victimise and harrass gay people.

I acknowledge the goodwill that the participants in this discussion have shown towards homosexuals, but the uncomfortable fact that sexual minorities are targeted because of their sexuality shouldn't be buried by diverting the discourse towards something a little less disconcerting. Remarks like Abbott's do real damage, and rather than calling it a beat-up, Shane's article deserves to be commended for pointing this out.

Heterosexuality is 100% pure and natural! the way nature intended! end of story! And there's no pride to be found playing in the gutter! and the law is a poofter! It works but not properly! and all it dose is screw everyone up the you know what! How long before the law legalises beastyality or pedophilia! because that's the way these sickos where born! Homosexuality is a mental disorder! How sad! and that is my online opinion.

Peterson,

You have the morals of sewer rat. I thought homosexual pedophillia was a pre requisite for christian priests?

With 15000 children abused in Ireland alone (according to the news this morning) christianity is all about "do what I say, not what I do."

Ngarmada
If you are claiming to be the paragon of integrity then you might rethink this statement:

"Like a selfish brat you cant get what you want on demand from the Rudd Govt, so you are either prepared to entertain negotiation with Abbott, or your political proclivity is toward his aberrant ideology."

Where have I said I am prepared to entertain negotiation with Abbott? You are attempting to muck rake when there is no muck to rake. Grasping at straws as your argument continues to sink further into the mire.

I have said numerous times on OLO that I am a Greens voter with ALP preference and would never vote for the Coalition (although I might rethink that if I was a NSW resident). In my last post on this thread I openly said I am not voting for Abbott. Do you need a neon sign?!

And you know very well I do not share Abbott's insecurities on homosexuality.

No ambiguity at all except in your own mind to suit your own agenda.

And...last I heard by 'selfish brat' you really mean a citizen of a democratic nation with the right to vote.

As for RObert, he is one of the most fair minded and logical thinkers on this forum (among many others) and does not deserve your attempts to twist another's words in an effort to dig yourself out of the hole you are continuging to dig for yourself.

RObert
I am not sure why I am wasting breath (or typing fingers) on this poster. Like hitting one's head on a brick wall.

Well said Pelican - and I'm very grateful I don't live in NSW either, so I can continue to vote Greens with (unfortunately) ALP preferences.

I loathe Abbott's politics, while I agree with R0bert that people can and do change - having done so myself. I really don't think Abbott has strayed very far from his conservative Catholic roots. I would love to ask him what his views are on RU486 - has he done a 180 on this as well? He is about as honest and forthcoming as John Howard.

Why would anyone be threatened by gays? When a lesbian has hit on me I just let them know, politely that I am not interested, just as I do when men hit on me - most times both lesbians and men have taken my rejection well, except in a couple of cases where the people were very, very drunk - some people, irrespective of their sexual-orientation as just plain difficult. I am sure that Abbott - mature man that he is could handle a pass from another man. Unless he is conflicted, I don't see what he has to be threatened by at all.

woulfe, I am confident the majority of my ethnic migrant community would acknowledge and concur with your comment.

Pelican, I concur with your comment of breath wasting. For as woulfe articulates, the issue is the meaning and implication of the Abbott comment, not the shallow and trite notions of depth of human understanding purported by yourself and RObert, that distract from the issue the author of the article is addressing. It is this issue that demonstrates your pretensions to being paragons of virtue.

Peterson, synonomous of such benchmark you distort, children born with autism may be open to suspicion as potential deviants. That many brilliant individuals are recognised as suffering autism, there now exists reconsideration of its definition as a malady. Similarly, noone stones to death lepers anymore, however it seems reforming bigots alike you, is still a work in progress.

I would hazard to guess, you still covet your first sexual experience, where it was dark and you were alone. However, according to the notions of the two posters I refer to in a former paragraph, there may be hope for you. Tried frontier psychiatry?

Severin, I wonder how much having spent time in institutional single sex living arrangements has to do with it. I went to boarding school as a teenager and I think that played a significant role in where I was at on the issue (along with previously held religious views on the issue). In the case of the boarding school shower blocks were communal, there were no private spaces to get changed etc. I recall cadet camp's where the toilets were in a large shared room rather than cubicles.

Not a lot of open gays in that environment but enough that the idea of sharing those types of spaces with someone who might enjoy a perve was not something most were happy about. In hindsight the concerns were overstated and I feel very sorry for any gay's who were forced into such a homophobic environment.

On the issue of Abbott's comments being used by homophobes to justify attacks on homosexuals, possibly but I think that's a long bow. I suspect that overtly camp or seedy portrayal's of male homosexuality have a far greater role to play in that. I think that it's changed in recent years but for a while the primary portrayals I'd seen of what it meant to be a gay male seemed to be mostly very camp or behavior that the straight equivalent of would be classed as fetish. If you already have a negative view of homosexuals that stuff is really fuel for the fire.

I know when I first started on OLO there was a poster named David who had a significant impact on my understanding of male homosexuals. He came across as a fairly normal guy in a long term relationship. His apparent honesty and basic decency gave cause to reevaluate some long term perceptions. There was more to it than just that but his posts were important.

R0bert

Severin
I don't know what Abbott has to feel threatened about either. Thanks for your comments.

Some are too quick to talk about homosexuality as though the state of being gay is somehow undeserving of the usually accepted human rights. The fact is some people are homosexual and should be treated equally within the gamut of all the wonderful diversity of human beings.

R0bert

<< I wonder how much having spent time in institutional single sex living arrangements has to do with it. I went to boarding school as a teenager and I think that played a significant role in where I was at on the issue (along with previously held religious views on the issue). In the case of the boarding school shower blocks were communal, there were no private spaces to get changed etc. I recall cadet camp's where the toilets were in a large shared room rather than cubicles. >>

I think you would've been in a state of permanent terror, back then. But clearly not now. Therefore, are you trying to excuse Abbott here, because he hasn't achieved your level of maturity?

Also I did not claim that Abbott's homophobia would lead to an increase in gay-bashing. No bow drawn there.

But now that you mention it - homophobia ain't going away with the likes of Abbott claiming they are threatened. He could, instead (like your good self) discuss the bullying kind of behaviour he may have experienced at boys' boarding schools - behaviour that was often perpetrated by males who grew up to be heterosexual.

Severin sorry I should have clarified that the latter parts of that post were a response to earlier comments by others.

R0bert

>> I know when I first started on OLO there was a
>> poster named David who had a significant impact
>> on my understanding of male homosexuals.

That was possibly David Skidmore http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=2043 , whose first article on OLO was referring to the homosexual advance defence report that I mentioned above (his term is gay panic defence).

>> On the issue of Abbott's comments being used
>> by homophobes to justify attacks on homosexuals,
>> possibly but I think that's a long bow.

As far as I know, a direct causal connection between politicians' anti-gay speech and homophobic violence has never been established, so Robert, there are some grounds for arguing that it is drawing a long bow. There's some less direct evidence, though. US researcher Gregory Herek's work has established the psychological consequences for lesbian and gay individuals of anti-gay politics:
http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/2008/11/25/anti-gay-ballot-campaigns-cause-psychological-harm/ I can only find anecdotal evidence for a link between political speech and homophobic harrassment, not least my own:

>> For most of the last five years we have been the
>> object of anti-gay harassment from a former
>> neighbour. [snip]
>>
>> I’m not so naïve as to confuse coincidence with
>> cause, but it was notable that our former neighbour’s
>> worst behaviour took place while our Federal
>> Parliament was discussing and enacting the
>> amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4796&page=0

I'm not alone in this: others have related similar experiences to me. With evidence that politicians' anti-gay speech does psychological damage, and the lived experience of many gays and lesbians that homophobic attacks occur when political leaders are expressing anti-gay views, I believe it's not drawing a long bow at all to say that Abbott's "I feel threatened" utterance legitimises homophobic attitudes.

Essentially the problem is that when politicians single us out for any sort of negative attention, we cop it from the homophobes. We don't deserve to be regarded as a threat, and we certainly don't deserve the negative attitudes that singling us out legitimises.

woulfe if Abbott had been making a speech or had tried to blame gay's for a variety of social ill's I'd be with you on that.

He answered a question during what seemed to be an informal and candid interview. I assume that he is bright enough to have expected the question at some point and that the answer was not entirely off the cuff so the answer was not out of the blue. It would be very unfair to compare what Abbott said to what I imagine would have been said during a period of heated debate and rallying of the troops on changes to the marriage act.

I did not see any attempts to blame gays for his feeling threatened in what he said. Trying to make the comments into something bigger than they were or insisting that they not be made because some extremists might take them to a whole other level will do more to inflame anti-gay phobia's than any thing Abbott said in that interview.

I'm reminded of the level of support Pauline Hanson got which went way beyond what she deserved, in my view much of it was because the tactics of those trying to silence her (including Abbott) were so extreme that they legitimized a lot of peoples concerns. If the gay lobby is seen to be trying to silence those who express any personal reservations it reinforces negative perceptions. It prompts people who feel similar reservations to assume that they are considered the enemy as well. If tolerance is sought it much also be given.

Public acceptance is homosexuality is a journey of social change and we did not all start at the same place and we are not all at the same place now. Commend those who are willing to change rather than condemning them because they are not as far along as you would like.

R0bert

I understand your point Robert, but this article is not about philosophy or psychology, it is about politics. The interview was political, the program is known for its reporting of current issues of the day, including political issues. Abbott was interviewed as he is the relatively newly installed leader of the Federal Opposition, in the year of a pending election. ABC Four Corners profiled him on Monday.

As I understand, woulfe attempted to explain considerately and articulately, by introducing hard data, the political potential from his comment for fuelling adverse attitudes, is real, and reasonably assessed. Nowhere is it demonstrated by the qualification brought to bear, its purpose is for mounting a counter fear campaign for the purpose of denigrating him, as may be indicated from your comment.

In fact, that as both a political leader and a long serving MP, Abbott would be aware of the potential consequences of his comment. Add to that his previously reported religious based views on the subject, reliably reported [ABC] record of his current and recent political conduct as I have demonstrated in recently previous posts, and you may reason the author of the article as retaining fair and balanced perspective.

Unless of course one is inclined to place more weight upon the flimsy indication of a report that amounts to ‘hearsay‘, supporting contentions of his potential benign perspective by some posters, and supposition based upon what may only be observed ‘wishful thinking.’ Your perspective also, appears based on your personal assessment of depth of human understanding, and predicated upon the ‘sound bites’ of one TV interview.

Therefore, the case for potential denial of this article could hardly be observed found upon credible critical analysis, could it

I forgot to add RObert, you need not stalk me to other threads, I am confident to debate you anywhere.

And I should have covered your miraculous transmutation into Abbotts' de facto PR rep in your last post, and as a strategist on this issue, I may only observe your capacity that of a non entity

Robert: <"He answered a question during what seemed to be an informal and candid interview.">

Oh puhleeze. Your post is so patronizing. OF COURSE it's a political statement. The man is only being interviewed because he's a politician. He well knows that everything and anything that he utters to anyone in the media is for public consumption.

I'm sorry to be irritable with your post R0bert - but what annoys me deeply is your effort to appear middle of the road; reasonable and fair in telling gay and pro-gay folk that they must be tolerant to expect tolerance (I am furious I must admit) - in disregard of the fact that homosexuals hold limited power in comparison to those who prevail over government, law, education etc - over every social and cultural domain. They are vilified in so many ways by a dominant society where homosexuals are legally and illegally victimized in big ways and small. To expect the underdog to appease the basher is so unjust I can hardly stand it.

I have visions of your post directed at homosexuals in Nazi Germany; telling them as they're being labeled with a pink triangle (or whatever) that they need to demonstrate tolerance to get tolerance.

You know I think you're too intelligent not to know that your seeming 'reasonableness' carries horrible import. Sitting up there lecturing gays on how they should shape their argument - as if ANY proposal they make is going to be met with anything but contempt... but they can be shuffled off for a long time by constantly telling them HOW they should argue their case in order to meet the high and mighty bloody standards of their oppressors.

pffft.

Robert:

Re: Peterson's nasty diatribe. Here's an example. Peterson isn't being lectured on giving tolerance to receive it is he. That's because he neither needs nor seeks tolerance from homosexual and pro-homosexual people. He is comfortable in the personal assurance that he is already on the default (dominant majority) side of the issue.

We might disapprove of his blatant nastiness and crass delivery, but nobody has bothered to dismantle his ignorance.

Peterson: Clinically speaking (though it is an ongoing debate) paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent bodies, not secondary sexual characteristics. Their orientation therefore is not adequately described as primarily hetero or homo etc. People who will have sex with adults or children fall into the category of opportunistic child sex abusers who might be homo or hetero in their orientation; they might prefer adults or teens, but will use a child's body if it's available to them. Of that group the vast majority are heterosexual. The greatest amount of child sexual abuse is carried out by heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and was declassified as such in the 1970s.

"There were no peer-oriented homosexual males in our sample who regressed to children. Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child's qualities are more feminine than
masculine ...
In any case, in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male."
(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978, pp. 180-181

Pynchme

Well said, you managed to put into words what I had been thinking about R0bert's less than transparent claims.

R0bert

Mate, your attempt to be 'middle-of-the-road' frequently runs into the verges when you attempt to excuse the utterances of someone like Abbott. Like you, Abbott is intelligent enough to know the import of what he says when he claims to be 'threatened by gays'. An appalling example of doublespeak: on the surface; candid and honest, beneath; a call to all homophobes. As Pynchme has already pointed out, Abbott's statement has brought the likes of Peterson to the surface.

I had hoped that you would expand on an issue - that of bullying of males by males which is often homosexual in its nature and yet many of these bullies would not consider themselves to be gay. Similar behaviour can be seen on other all-male situations such as gaol or in the armed forces. Homosexual behaviour by heterosexual men - it is all about control, just as raping women is about control. However, this grey area of the human psyche is far more common than is ever discussed. People (male and female) are under more threat by these dominant types - irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Severin if I'm trouble for sticking up for Abbott then consider yourself in trouble for cheering on Pynchme. She rarely tries to be fair in her claims.

I think my point was clearly and fairly made, it really then gets down to world view. You appear to have a different view to me on this.

I really could not be bothered getting bogged down in this.

R0bert

Legal maxim: 'If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, slander the opposition.'

Commendable sentiments, Pynchme and Severin, and thanks for the backup, but I think the anger's a bit displaced. The nub of Robert's post is that you can't take people further or faster than they're prepared to go. This in turn is an acknowledgement that there's still a lot of progress to be made in achieving practical, as opposed to legal equality for sexual minorities.

In every conversation about harrassment, one of the biggest hurdles is the scepticism of otherwise sympathetic, well-disposed individuals. Because homophobic acts happen under the radar, it's a huge challenge to convince the average bloke on the bus that they are real. Oxford Street Darlinghurst looks like an ordinary inner-city thoroughfare, so it's difficult for most passers-by to grasp that it's also a magnet for people who want to vent abuse and violence upon gays. In my own case, before our attacker's behaviour became impossible to ignore, our neighbours thought I was delusional when I told them what was happening to us. The recurring question was "how do you know it's homophobia?"

The simple answer is that the victim always knows, because perpetrators of hate crimes always want them to know. However I am forced to concede that in the context of our legal system, assertions of homophobic abuse require a standard of proof that determined homophobes can easily evade. A simple response to Shane's implied question, whether Tony Abbott's utterances irresponsibly give succour to homophobes, is that the people best qualified to know are the victims of homophobia. Believing this will depend on how much you wish to insist on gilt-edged legal-standard proofs, as opposed to accepting the accounts of victims. My view is that since in this case no-one's at risk of being sent to gaol, erring on the side of victims is justifiable.

Robert has generously let us follow the evolution of his views here on OLO, and has shown himself to be open-minded on many issues, not just this one. His scepticism about the effect of Abbott's remarks is unsurprising, and in my experience, widely held. Give him a break.

woulfe

<<< The simple answer is that the victim always knows, because perpetrators of hate crimes always want them to know >>>

Too true. And I have been to that dark place.

However, I wished to explore the issue of male on male bullying - something that is very much "under the radar". Part of the reason being that many men are uncomfortable acknowledging that they have been victimised.

We hear a lot from men's groups about bullying women and they do need to be outed. But so little from these same groups about men who bully other men. Most crime is committed by men on men - whether homophobia is a part of the conscious or unconscious motivation or not. I had hoped to look more closely at this issue. And am very disappointed at R0bert's vapid response above. And his claims that Pynchme is unfair? - an unfounded claim. Now Runner is unfair.

As you say, you can't take people faster or further than they want to go.

woulfe
You are a good person.

Reading through these posts again I think one point has been forgotten. None of us on this thread so far concur with Abbott's statement about his feelings towards homosexuality. Do any of us now feel threatened by homosexuality after the comment?

Give us all some credit, most people are not homophobes and I think most people took the word 'threatened' to mean Abbott's own discomfort given his Catholic upbringing, not threatened in the worst sense of the word. It has to be taken in context.

It is a bit like the ironing comment. As a woman I thought this was a beat up too and don't feel I am letting my sisters down in this perspective. Abbott is who Abbott is - I know who he is and I won't be voting for him.

Will Abbott eventually change? Probably not, but that is his cross to bear ('scuse the pun).

Giving RObert a hard time because he acknowledges, like I do that this is Abbott's own personal dilemma, is also overt.

Anyway I better get back I have some ironing to do.

woulfe, thanks. I probably snapped more than I should have at Severin, generally I respect her but the earlier sarcastic comment to to what I'd shared combined with cheering on Pynchme did not go down well.

I'm not just talking about taking people further or faster than they are ready to go but also about the perceptions which are created when it seems that groups who are striving for tolerance seem unwilling to give it themselves. That does not mean tolerating active discrimination or abuse but it does mean accepting that others will give tolerance rather than celebration.

Being seen to be intolerant of others for holding or expressing unwanted viewpoints (which don't include hate speech etc) gives some justification for others to harden their own views. Some will hate regardless of what you do or don't do (as was demonstrated earlier on this thread by Peterson).

It's a difficult discussion and I do see that Abbott could have used a better words to expressing what he said (and that he probably had considered his response to a question he was likely to be asked).

At this stage I'd not vote for him either (which as a long term coalition voter is not trivial to me). His historical stance on a variety of issues as Howard's attack dog disgusted me and I don't accept that it was Ok because that's what his role demanded.

I do also see that sometimes roles bring out better in people than they might otherwise be, that Abbott may well be thinking about the kind of person he want's to be if he gets to lead the country and be working at the changes to make it so. I don't know that but I'd not outright dismiss the possibility of a choice towards personal growth.

R0bert

Severin I've thought about your challenge to discuss male bullying and think that there could be value in it. A risky proposition to share something like that but hopefully worth it. I've submitted an opening post for a thread on the topic.

R0bert

Dennis Pryor wrote a satirical booklet
called, "Political Pryorities: How to get
on top of Australian Politics," a few decades
ago. In it he discusses a few laws of politics
that may be of interest...

Pryor tells us that:

" Politicians tend to follow the law of obfuscation
or "that wasn't what I said." All of their statements
have to be worded so that the opposite meaning can
be extracted from them. For example the hidden agenda
of a simple statement like, "we'll abolish poverty,"
reads : "We shall abolish poverty sometime in the future
subject to the state of the economy; if the Senate lets
us, if we haven't got more important things to do, if it
suits the international bankers and if there is no more
important measure necessary to win the next election."

We therefore should expect that
Tony Abbott will always be able to explain his statement
of being threatened by gays in a wide variety of ways.

Personally, I can't see why any politician would bother
talking about anyone's sexual orientation - and how it
affects them. Unless it is a deliberate ploy to appeal
to a certain sector of voters.

I would have thought that their (i.e the pollies) pursuit
of power is for them the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Severin thanks for seeing what I meant.

R0bert, I don't think that expressing agreement and adding extra information to further an opinion amounts to "cheering" someone on.

I'll be interested to read your thread.

IMO I am always fair.

Woulfe - I stand by my opinion re: demands by a moral majority to dictate the terms of challenge as a means of resistance.

I am not gay myself nor ever had that experience but have dear friends and colleagues who are gay and who struggle against polite contempt every day. I had them in mind in my anger as I replied to Robert's post. I do campaign on several social justice issues and am familiar with methods of dismissing minority group's claims to decent treatment, tolerance and inclusion by blaming them for not presenting their issue in one way or another.

Foxy: "I would have thought that their (i.e the pollies) pursuit
of power is for them the ultimate aphrodisiac."

I'm still thinking about that. Wondering about women who gain power as well, some of whom show the same inclination IMO.

Beaut post as always.

That the majority of posters to this article are reasonable, fair minded, and balanced of their judgement, I will also defer to those wishes expressed by woulfe, but for one exception which is significant of perspective of this dialogue.

This debate in these posts was constructive and cordial, until RObert asserted his opinions by deriding others including me. He is observed comprehensively beaten up in the debate, and while everyone else continues to be fair minded and reasonable, he still demonstrates no willngness to reciprocate even balance in his comments. e.g. 'World view' for christs sake!

That is my last word on the subject.

This thread has been extraordinary for the considered thought put forward by all contributors. We should rejoice, with the exception (and there is always one) of Peterson, the comments have been for the most part cordial.

R0bert.

Two points:

Agreeing with someone's opinion, as in Pynchme's case is not cheering someone on.

Setting up a thread of male on male violence is completely commendable and will be difficult to remain on topic. Having been a victim at school of female bullying, I am very open to hearing from men about their experiences of bullying by their male peers. It will be a tricky path to follow - avoiding homophobia, claims of "male bashing" and that the entire thing is a feminist plot to deride men. Good Luck, I promise to honestly contribute - and I do try to be honest whether I am disposed to be friendly or sceptical of various posters.

Pelican

I admire honesty and I do know that you are one of the most consistent posters here. On topic, you have tried to look for the best of intentions in Tony Abbott - that he is more guilty of foot-in-mouth than calculating. Therefore, what I would like you to consider is the statement by a politician stating that he or she is threatened by gays.

Pynchme

I don't see anywhere on this topic where you have been personally insulting. You dare to call people out on their claims - this can cut too close to the bone for some, but it is never a personal attack.

Ngarmada

You are new to OLO therefore I bid you welcome - there are people here who will amaze and delight if you give them time, none of us are one-dimensional (well maybe Runner) nor perfect (yours truly).

Regards to all.

Severin, I do have some trepidation about where the new thread could go but it could be useful. At some point it would be really interesting to see the equivalent female bullying of female's thread.

Given the tone of Pynchme's post and the wording of your post it looks very much like cheering on Pynchme. Pynchme recast me into Nazi Germany, did that bother you at all? Were those words which expressed so well what you wanted to say?

I've tried hard to be honest about my own journey on this thread. I've tried to provide a different perspective on what might actually provoke homophobes than appeared to be understood by most who have been taken part in this thread. I copped a sarcastic comment from you regarding what I'd shared of my own past and some quite nasty slurs from Ngarmada. Pynchme coming in with her angry twist and re-positioning of what I'd been saying was and is hurtful.

If the goal is philosophical point scoring then attacking me for what I'm saying (and trying to say) is valid, if it's about reducing homophobia and trying to give those willing to change a better place to do it then it's not. I think that I have something to contribute here regardless of how much it annoys some.

I'd not bother with Peterson at this point, he is so deeply into where he is that I doubt that anything said here will have the slightest impact other than confirming his views.

R0bert

Dear Pynch,

Thanks for your kind words.

To Everyone else I'd just like to add - that
whether its in our relationships or in the
workplace, most of us are always negotiating
for our own voice. The only path to happiness
is to really be all that we can be. If our
intentions aren't just to win the game, then
we can feel good that we've spoken our mind
without malice or anger but just from the
depths of our truth.

Of course we might say to ourselves afterward,
I shouldn't have said that, or perhaps I should
have said it differently. Well, okay, maybe we need
to work on our presentation - it's important to be
conscious and compassionate and act with civility,
but we shouldn't forget our own wisdom because of the
fear that we'll lose something. What's more important?
Losing our face , or losing our integrity?

We're often placed in situations where we possibly don't
handle things as well as we should. That often happens
when we have strong beliefs as well as our own insecurities.
And also to be less seasoned is to be less tolerant.

The more seasoned we are, the more willing we are to let
others shine. OLO is a learning curve for many of us -
and one of the most important lessons I've learned is
we'll all react when the right buttons are pushed.
I'm still learning to try to control that impulse...

If our intentions aren't just to win the game, then
we can feel good that we've spoken our mind
without malice or anger but just from the
depths of our truth.

…but we shouldn't forget our own wisdom because of the
fear that we'll lose something. What's more important?
Losing our face , or losing our integrity?

Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 20 March 2010 9:59:59 AM

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Why are you suggesting another thread to me?

Was it something I wrote - that you found
offensive?

I'd like to know the reason for your
remark.

Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 20 March 2010 5:12:50 PM
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

My apologies.

I went and read that particular thread
and now I get it!

Just ignore my previous post.

And by the way - Thanks!

Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 20 March 2010 5:39:25 PM

I’m having a little trouble with the potential incongruence here Foxy? Loudmouth [aka Joe] is clearly observed a bigot on the same thread your posts came from. [re: Windschuttle and the stolen generation]

If the sentiments you express are reliable, when we consider perspective, it is also important we consider its integrity.

Dear N,

Go back to the Windschuttle thread and read
my last post. Perhaps you will then understand
what it is that I am trying to say.

BTW - I try to avoid putting labels on people.
It usually doesn't achieve anything constructive.

Instead I try to encourage people to obtain knowledge -
by doing their research on a topic. Because through
knowledge - comes burdens - which can't be shirked by
those living in ignorance.

With knowledge the question
is no longer what we know - but what we are now to do?

Still searching for that affirmation r0bert?

The chicks are right. You're as bad as Hitler. A fence sitting Hitler!

pelican as usual is the only one talking sense.

Dear Houellebecq,

Still getting pleasure by typing annoying
controversial/offensive words at strangers
on internet forums!

How about actually contributing something
to the topic?

And we won't even ask that it makes sense.

Be a bit more creative - and give it a go.
Instead of doing the "same old, same old rountine"
thread after thread. It's wearing a bit thin -
and getting stale!

Severin, I oversighted your welcome. Thank you, your point is taken. However RObert continues to deviously attempt to have the last word while coincidently promoting himself as a paragon of balanced reason. The real reason he has been copping slurs is because that is what he has been implying and throwing with some attempted devious subtlety.

Check out Pages 37 & 38 of the archived article, ‘Land of Opportunity: but not for monoculturalists.’ The corresponding time lines to this thread realise some fascinating reading. He may be a sweet guy, but attempted hetero bashing while ostensibly observed in the company of gay associates, is the same bullying attitude identified with homophobia.

And when the reason is observed, of objection to his perceived distortion of credible arguments of an article for important debate on gay issues such as this thread, his motives are potentially suspect.

Although I observe that motive more inclined to his aberrant conservative ideology, relevant to his defence of Abbott, rather than attempted disruption of issues of gay debate, nevertheless the potential to misinform is exactly the same. RObert needs to grow up and realise he is not the centre of the universe.

Ngarmada

Thank you for your acknowledgement.

I agree, ostensibly, R0bert presents a reasonable face. However it was not R0bert (he does not fool all the people all the time), per se, I had in mind when asking your consideration of being open to pleasant revelations of many of our regular posters. There are many here I respect even though completely at odds with them on some issues.

I have been around OLO long enough to be familiar with the underlying motives of many of the regular posters here. My former moniker was Fractelle is you wish to form a picture of my persona.

Regards

What is this - bash R0bert day?

R0bert

Ah, Foxy. Admit it. You're smitten.

If you were a more educated consumer of my 'work', you would see the subtle messages in my 'controversial' posts.

Here, I decide to back r0bert. I expose the farcial situation of being accused of being a fence-sitting Hitler for not being outraged a religious man admits to being uncomfortable with homosexuality, and daring to suggest that people might not win friends by making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ngarmada,

What the hell was that last post all about?

'Devious subtlety'? I think Foxy and others would agree it's not really r0bert's MO. Passive aggressive maybe, but if he showed a bit more 'devious subtlety', I for one would have noticed. It would be a welcome turn of events if r0bert would blossom in such a way, but I cant see it in the near future.