Nina appears to begin with blaming the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal (ARRT) and then switches to blaming the courts. This is after referring to a favourable decision by the High Court.

My understanding is that the ARRT is not a court and is better described as an arm of the executive government. The executive government's and Parliament's might call the ARRT "independent" but its members are only appointed for 5 years. Judges of courts have life tenure. This life tenure is one of the true hallmarks of an independent judiciary and it is something the ARRT lacks.

It means that the ARRT members have an interest in handing down decisions which are favourable to the executive government lest they not be reappointed for another 5 years.

Nina may have cases to which she can refer and that show that the courts are incompetent but I suspect its really the incompetence of the ARRT and not the courts to which Nina is referring.

The ARRT is not a court and that we have an executive government and Parliament that pretends that it is independent is in itself a separate and equally - perhaps more - troubling issue.

LBGT Australians have a well founded fear of persecution too but wouldn't be able to go to another country and claim refugee status. Unfortunately, we can only help so many people. Lets make sure that they are the most downtrodden refugees possible.

Gee thanks Nina. Where does this guy fit into your lovely day dream world?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1057437/acrobat-knowingly-spread-hiv-police

Sexual extremes like "Frigidity" or "Nymphomania" are psychological conditions or symptoms of other, psychological conditions. They usually are the result of childhood abuse, but can also come from partner abuse in adult life. That's why so many middle aged men, turn gay after separation & divorce.

Don't believe me, ask counselors working with "Survivors" (listening are we, Cotter? Pynchme?). Same goes for almost all, Gay, Lesbian & Transgender lifestyle.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1058117/acrobat-remanded-in-custody-in-hiv-case

But please, there are Aussie War Veterans sleeping rough, ordinary Aussies waiting on hospital waiting lists, Housing Commission waiting lists, while the taxpayers fund refugees staying in 3 star motels, or empty hospital buildings, please, lets bring some more of them hear to bankrupt our nation on the eve of GFC #2.

But "wait, there's more" please, lets make sure we don't just bring, more, ordinary people, lets bring in more deviants & nutcases, while we are at it.

"Please, Send us some more, Nina, send us some more"

Could policy having the effect of weakening our economy, be described as Economic Treason?

Formersnag - the acrobat you are referring to was engaging in hetero sex and may have infected straight and bisexual women.

The issues you raise about veterans etc are legitimate issues but wholly unrelated to the Federal govt. allowing refugees into the country. They're more so about bureaucratic bungling, political incompetence, and can simply come down to a general lack of compassion for others that as humans we display all the time. The same lack of compassion you appear to be demonstrating.

Veterans fought for many reasons - many of them personal to each veteran - but one of the broader reasons for us to have fought or why we fight in any war is for freedom. Freedom from oppression, oppression of a class similar to the very oppression that these gays face throughout their lives.

twistoflime, if Jesus was here in OZ right now, i have no doubt that he would NOT be a "westie bogan" in Sydney, travelling to Oxford street with 12 fellow gang members to "Bash Poofters" every week.

That does not however, also mean that he would offer to lead the, "Mardi Gras" marry gay, lesbian, or transgender couples in church, arrange for them to adopt children, offer free medicare IVF to a woman who is too squeamish to have normal sex with a gentleman, etc, etc, etc.

There is a difference between "tolerating" minorities & actively promoting them. Especially if that involves encouraging immorality, or bankrupting yourself in order to throw out the welcome mat to everybody, from all over the world.

The incompetence you mentioned has been with us for 4 or 5 decades now. I'm sure Noel Pearson & other first Australian's are also tired of waiting for their slice of the economic pie.

Formersnag

My understanding of Jesus and the Bible was that he never said anything about gays nor did anything to condemn gays. At best the Bible is unclear as to what Jesus' views on homosexuality would be. And also it is unclear what his views would have been on all those issues you have just raised. You simply have no idea and at best are speculating.

We are not even close to bankrupting ourselves because of refugees. It might become a problem but it isn't one now. Most welfare is not spent on immigrants and refugees. No doubt the tax exemptions and subsidies that the Churches receive are far more expensive than the cost of allowing in refugees.

The expense of allowing in refugees is not a great financial expense and especially not in the context of our entire budget.

Don't dress-up a mostly emotional position in pseudo-economics. We build tunnels and roads that cost immensely more money.

So now homosexuals not only demand the "right" to practise homosexuality,
but also the "right" to "come out" in Bangladesh, Malawi, Iran, etc!
And if these multicultural paradises don't grant that right then Australia should provide a haven from "persecution".

What sort of Australia are you trying to create?
A refuge for all the world's homosexuals?
Presumably they should not then be disallowed merely because they have AID's.
That would be heaping discrimination upon persecution.

<<Of course a person's right to be safely homosexual extends well beyond the right to seek out "discreet" homosexual sex>>
How far does that "right" extend? To homosexual marriage?
Should homosexual Australians be eligible for refugee status in Canada or the Netherlands because they are persecuted in Australia by not being allowed to marry?

<<Evidently, it is not enough to simply identify as homosexual; one must also pass a promiscuity test>>
If it was "enough to simply identify as homosexual" then anybody could "simply identify as homosexual" and they would have to be admitted on that basis.
Are you really that naive?

The <<farcical incompetence exhibited by the>> author makes me grateful that she is not in a position of power in the immigration department.
It also makes you wonder what passes for research and learning at universities these days.

The author says:

Last week a court in Malawi sentenced a gay couple who staged a same-sex wedding to 14 years in prison with hard labour for "violating the natural order".

(at least the Malawians 'get' it...NATURAL order)

Then she says:

The systemic homophobia and widespread persecution of gay and lesbian individuals across the globe is absolutely appalling.

To which I reply... "Hmmm.. perhaps it is Nina's attitude which is appalling?" Perhaps she is a lesbian ? a communist?

Then she says:

They need not have worried. Time and again the Australia Refugee Review Tribunal has proved itself to be breathtakingly obstinate and utterly insensitive towards those who apply for refugee status on the basis of their sexuality.

CORRECT INTEPRETATION of the ARRT's approach.

"For the benefit of the Australian cultural, social and religious balance, harmony and cohesian, the ARRT has diligently applied sound principle and protected Australia from an invasion of sexual devients who would otherwise have found a haven here"

Call em as you see em....I did.

ALGOREisRICH

You clearly don't understand what "natural" means. There are many documented accounts of homosexual activity in animals. Just because a particular activity is practised less often than another doesn't make it unnatural.

Communist? Lesbian? Neither attributes matter to the issue at hand.

The ARRT is not making the decisions based on those things that you mention.

On the matter of "sexual deviance" you would also be a deviant. Since most people - according to most published polls - are not opposed to homosexual marriage and would prefer to see them have "equal rights" it would seem that you too may deviate from the norm.

Hi there Twist(ed?)

The "natural order" is males/females reproducing.

If you don't see or get that, you need to get help.

Exceptions to the rule do not nullify the rule. (or the obvious)

Referring to polls is misleading at best. Opinion does not 'change' it is changed.. (Rodney Croome disagrees..that's why he attended a Gay Marriage debate recently in Hawthorn..because he believes it 'won't' change anything) duh.

Struth, I'm trying to juggle acrobats, Jesus, and gay asylum seekers in my head now.

If this keeps up, soon I'll be in an asylum myself.

P.S. I think I'd like to live in a world where there were no other humans. Sigh!

Nina Funnell: << The homophobia exhibited within Australian courts and the wider community illustrates that there is still much intolerance to overcome. >>

Absolutely. Anybody casting a cursory glance over any discussion at OLO relating to homosexuality can see just how true this statement is.

As a heterosexual man, I'm quite shocked at the amount of homosexual vilification that apparently still exists in Australian society. The amount of "poofter-bashing" that goes on at this site is appalling.

We still have a long way to go.

Christians are persecuted and locked away on a daily basis in many nations. I wonder why most journalist don't give a stuff about them. They would prefer to focus on a very small minority. We have had enough problems with clergy, teachers, artists and sports people without importing more problems.

Runner, i am curious, how do you respond to my earlier post about Jesus & how he might react to gay, lesbian & transgender people if he was here in OZ right now? Perhaps Peter the Believer is out there too somewhere.

C J Morgan, What utter rubbish, there is a difference between tolerating minorities, or "not persecuting them" & "slobbering all over them" like the red/green/getup/labour coalition does.

Try talking to ordinary EX Labour, voters, as i have, they will tell you, they have had a gutful of minorities being shoved in their face & Billions of taxes being thrown at them, while Aussies, including, "Black Fellas" are living in poverty.

Minorities is who/what will be responsible for, 2010, NEVER AGAIN.

David G, the only nightmare in your world is the Communist, Anarchist, Socialists, from the red/green/getup/labour coalition but they will soon be gone, children will be safe again.

ALGOREisRICH, spot on mate. How do you feel about an Aussie "Tea Party Movement"? Methinks, "Cracker Night" arguably the first intervention of "The Nanny/Big Sista State" into OZ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night

All over OZ in the 60's wide eyed toddlers waved their sparklers in the air while Dad set off sky rockets into the night sky. Blissfully unaware of the true meaning behind "Cracker Night". But a little older, towards the end of primary school when the 3r's had been completed & you were learning some history.

Dad's all over the land, with a sly grin would tell the story of Guy Fawkes, Gun Powder & Plots. The true meaning of "Cracker Night". As portrayed in that brilliant movie with Hugo Weaving, V for Vendetta. Those masks are available from costume shops all over OZ.

TwistofLime, AL's mention & mine of Communist, Anarchist, Socialists is entirely appropriate as they have been promoting Anti Social, Anti Family, policies outside the iron curtain ever since the early 1930's & again in the 60's.

http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html

http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html

I'd love to see Formersnag and Boazy form a political party based on the extreme views they espouse at OLO.

That would really be a 'minority group'.

Proxy
Homosexuals aren't 'demanding' the right to practise homosexuality nor to 'come out', and it is not the homosexuals who are trying to create a sort of Australia that is a haven for the world's homosexuals.

It is *Australian governments* who have done all that you are blaming on homosexuals.Homosexuals are merely relying on the Australian government to honour the undertakings it has made by signing the UN Refugees Convention Australia. It defines a refugee to be someone who has well-founded fear of being persecuted for, among other things, membership of a particular social group. The courts have interpreted membership of a particular social group to include homosexuals.

I don't see it as a problem. I think if someone is at risk of being imprisoned for their sexuality, and we have undertaken to protect them, we should. For those who don’t agree, the solution is not to arbitrarily decide that homosexuals are not a particular social group, which they clearly are, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. The solution is for Australia to go to the UN, take its name off the Convention, and stop pretending to aspire to human rights standards we have no intention of honouring.

As with religion, there is no requirement to practise it secretly, because it is a basic human right; so with homosexuality. So if they can't practise their homosexuality but in secret, then they have a real chance of being persecuted and are entitled to a visa. I didn't make it up: that's just the law that Australia has undertaken and enacted.

I once acted for a homosexual from Zanzibar in his successful application to the RRT for a protection visa. The RRT member was himself a homosexual and was trying to be sympathetic. He asked in sensitive tone "And when did you first realise you were homosexual?"

The applicant, perhaps misunderstanding the question, replied "Oh down the back of the bus shelters."

LOL

Formersnag,

Runner, i am curious, how do you respond to my earlier post about Jesus & how he might react to gay, lesbian & transgender people if he was here in OZ right now?

I think Jesus would love them like any other person. Like the woman caught in adultery He would also tell any wanting forgiveness to 'go and sin no more'. To those promoting this godless lifestyle and holding placards in His face I think He would have harsh words to say to like He did the religous people of the day.

And yes, a homosexual at risk of persecution in Australia could, in principle at least, successfully apply for refugee status in another country that has signed on to the Convention. Again, I once acted for an Indian man who successfully applied for refugee status on the basis that he was at risk of persecution in India for reasons of membership of a Hindu organisation. The fact we might think it dubious is irrelevant. The task of assessing the facts is the tribunal’s not ours. Other states may be reluctant to find that such a person is unable to access the protection of the Australian state. But *if* they found, as a matter of fact, that the applicant has well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of homosexuality in Australia, and that the state cannot or will not protect him, then the signatory state would have protection obligations towards the applicant.

The fact that other religious or racial groups may also be at risk of persecution, or the fact that they may even face discrimination or persecution in Australia, is irrelevant. There is no quota system. Anyone meeting the definition is entitled to protection. The solution for those who don't want it is not to pick and choose among deserving cases, but to abrogate the Convention.

Twistoflime has it right on the RRT. It is an executive tribunal, a star chamber. Its members are entirely dependent on the Minister for their re-appointment; they are government employees of a government department deciding applications for government decisions on government-created privileges according to government-monopoly law in government-monopoly tribunals. It is an absurd lie to say the RRT is independent.

Peter Hume, I tried your quiz. Fascinating stuff, but you did not reply to my comments about "the alternative left/right dichotomy". Did you try the links i put into that article? Read the book etc? Are you a member of the LNP, or the LDP, or one of the many other new parties popping up all over the place at the moment? I must say the LDP, interests me, if they have any meetings coming up, i would like to check them out.

Also did you read all my comments on this article or the other one on the euthanasia debate? What do you think of the distinction i drew between "tolerating", or not "oppressing minorities" as opposed to "fawning all over them", promoting them to be the "new majority" as the red/green/getup/labour coalition does?

How about my suggestion to ALGOREisRICH, about an Australian "Tea Party" movement?

Btw, your quiz said i was a libertarian but at the bottom of the box, next to the centrist box. Having then read their descriptions of all the other political types i would describe myself as essentially a centrist with a bit libertarian, conservative thrown in. The conservative in me says you should try to do the medical Hippocratic oath. First do no harm, by rushing change too hastily & upsetting apple carts, like throwing the stock market into a spin by rushing into the RSPT at this time of already spooked stock markets.

C J Morgan, my political views are, if anything extremely, moderate, main stream stuff, i get agreement on almost everything i say, almost everywhere i go, from almost everybody. The only exceptions to that rule are from people like yourself "online" whose comments clearly display a hard left flavour that would resonate with less than 4% of the population.

i have also been witness to the spin style of the loony, left for decades, which in essence is telling deliberate, premeditated, lies, over & over & over again till your "blue in the face" & start believing your own drivel, just like Adolf towards the bitter end.

TRIBUNALS... RRT or HREOC are exactly at PETER Hume describes them.

But in one case they work 'against' his cherished victims (rrt) and in another the CEO Helen Szoke says "Some of my best workers are gay"....

You can work out the prejudice/bias level on that yourselves.

Peter.. you seem to enjoy undermining Austalia's sovereignty.. Are you one of those lawyers who tries to continually claim our law must be subject to UN declarations/conventions?

You should know that there are plenty of proviso's in those conventions which allow for governments to take 'good order' into account and being signatories to them does NOT change that.

It all boils down to a subjective assessment of the type of behavior in question.

But by promoting International Law.. you simply show you are either a gullible proxy for Maurice Strong and Al Gore and their Global Governance ambitions, or plain ignorant. I doubt you are ignorant.. so perhaps re-read the conventions again ?

ALGOREisRICH,
<<a gullible proxy for Maurice Strong and Al Gore>>??
Proxy will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

*smile* :)

Formersnag: << my political views are, if anything extremely, moderate, main stream stuff, i get agreement on almost everything i say, almost everywhere i go, from almost everybody. The only exceptions to that rule are from people like yourself "online" whose comments clearly display a hard left flavour that would resonate with less than 4% of the population. >>

You probably don't go around the place in real life babbling about the "red/green/getup/labour coalition" or the "paedophile femanazis" that you're always on about here. There's nothing moderate or mainstream about your comments at OLO.

Also, as you seem to be unaware of what you write, there's nothing moderate or mainstream about the US 'Tea Party' movement either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I hope this helps.

Formersnag
Sorry, my internet connection has been difficult or impossible and I stopped following that thread a while back. Both left and right wing think aggression against others is fine, so long as it’s for whatever purpose they arbitrarily approve. We libertarians are the only ones consistent across the spectrum in defending freedom against arbitrary power.

AlGOREisRICH
&#61656; Peter.. you seem to enjoy undermining Austalia's sovereignty.. Are you one of those lawyers who tries to continually claim our law must be subject to UN declarations/conventions?

It’s not a question of undermining Australia’s sovereignty. Australia signed a convention undertaking not to return people to their home states if they meet the definition of refugee. People are entitled to apply for that protection under Australian law. Applying for the grant of a visa is not “undermining Australia’s sovereignty” – is it?

I am personally against our law being subject to UN conventions; as I think the UN is very bad for various reasons, and has no moral primacy. However in a refugee application, that is not the issue. I represent the client’s claim to protection under Australian law, not my personal opinion. Australia having signed the convention, the question is whether the applicant is entitled to a visa under current law. Australia could just as well, and in my opinion should, recognise refugee status without the UN convention.

&#61656; You should know that there are plenty of proviso's in those conventions which allow for governments to take 'good order' into account and being signatories to them does NOT change that.

There is no proviso in the Refugees Convention allowing for governments to refuse an otherwise meritorious application on grounds of ‘good order’ or suchlike.

Can you prove such a proviso applies?

You seem to be suggesting that treaties can be just interpreted to enable the signatory to escape from their obligations, claiming everything is just a matter of interpretation. This is incorrect, and would go against good faith in the interpretation of treaties.

Thinkabit, Are you a defensive member of the red/green/getup/labour coalition or a self funded retiree whose very worried about their shares &/or superannuation?

The domino effect i described is very normal. It happens all the time in markets. Markets go up AND they go down again.

Suppose for the sake of argument that your "best case scenario" is true & other banks, countries, don't go broke. The stronger economies of the EU like France & Germany have had to weaken their already struggling economies to bail out Greece.

Their banks, treasuries, now have less money available to save their own struggling economies. The only economies anywhere in the world doing OK, are BRICOZ, Brazil, Russia, India, China & us Aussies.

Brazil, Russia & OZ have been doing OK because there has been some continuing demand for our mining boom products. This is because India & China were booming so strongly when GFC#1 started, that their economies had some momentum, keeping them going, which is now running out of puff.

As all the other economies continue struggling, they continue consuming less products from India & China, they in turn, will need less of our mining exports. Enter GFC#2 for everybody.

The stock market can't go down much more than it already has, so if that is your concern, stop worrying. But unemployment will rise, bankruptcies & mortgage defaults will rise, the real estate market in OZ has not yet dropped, like it did last time & every other recession before that.

That economist who lost his bet about Aussie real estate dropping by 40% was only wrong on the timing.

There are 2 other economies with a GDP debt ratio worse than Greece, Italy & Japan, with the US racing to catch up to them.

Lesson for us, get rid of the red/green/getup/labour coalition ASAP.

Hasbeen, spot on mate. http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/

Dear Peter..I am most relieved to read that:

I am personally against our law being subject to UN conventions; as I think the UN is very bad for various reasons, and has no moral primacy.

If you only knew.....

On the issue of what they are entitled to? Well.. not knowing the facts of each situation I can't say too much but you have aleviated my primary concern with your response above.

If you look at the recent submissions by the HREOC (Australian and Victorian) they are constantly arguing for a primacy of Human Rights law over Australian law.

This is tantamount to a 'Treaty of Waitangi' where the Engilsh version said "Accept Sovereignty of the Crown' and the Maori version said "Protection" of the Crown. Just one word..but the consequences have been immeasurable.

The day that "Human Rights" law becomes soveriegn over Aussie law, is the day Gore and Soros and Strong and ilk rule our land.. yes..I really mean that. (the U.N. is never the "United Nations")

On ya runner.

The strong persistence by a minority of the population to legitimize the

illegitimate,will forever amaze me I am sure.

My firm opinion on homosexuality is to keep it firmly under the carpet

where it all belongs with the other "queer" stuff that lands outside

of a basic and traditional morality.

AlGOREisRICH

Well we're agreed there.

Australia withdrawing from the UN Refugees Convention would have a lot of advantages. It would not in any way restrict our ability to recognise refugees, and extend protection to whomever we wish. It would enable us to decide who deserves protection and who doesn't. As things stand, the government doesn't have any choice. Once somebody is found as a matter of fact to meet the definition of refugee, then the government has protection obligations and that's that. But the definition comes not just from our own courts, but from the authorities of international law, which includes the decisions of other nations' courts, the opinions of academics, and UN treaties. The effect is predictable: to define as human rights whatever trendy latte-sipping parasites think should be human rights.

To say that Australia's law should be subject to "human rights" law is not about human rights, it's about political power. It means that the unelected representatives of foreign states, most of whom have abysmal human rights records, sitting in UN committees, get to decide what Australian law should be, instead of Australian voters.

The theory of these people is invariably that a human right is whatever the state says it is. It should come as no surprise that the state says it is what just happens to give more power to government officials. So they dream up human rights like the "right" to services paid for by others under compulsion, the standard belief of socialists and fascists throughout the world, the infantile narcissism of the unweaned sqalling for the teat, crying for something for nothing.

The fact is, there is and can be no such thing as the right to human labour taken under compulsion. If there were, there would and could be such a thing as a human right to slavery, the quintessential belief of all statism, of which the UN is the apogee.

The only human right is the right to be free to do what you want so long as you are not aggressing against others.

Hrrmpth.

i was wondering where my comment on the Greek tragedy went to.

diver dan, on ya mate, i agree with yourself & runner. The red/green/getup/labour coalition have been "slobbering all over minorities" throwing billions of taxes at them & ramming them down our throats for too long.

ALGOREisRICH, don't forget the other international banksters, Rothschild's, et al.

Peter Hume, i thought i had detected a libertarian flavour in your comments, without you actually naming it. The other left, right dichotomy i spoke of can be found here.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/nonedarecallit_conspiracy.pdf

Check it out, let me know what you think. But i repeat, "evil prospers while good men do nothing". Are you in a political party or protest organisation? If not why not? Are you interested in starting one? Australia needs you ASAP.

C J Morgan, if you really knew anything about the American "Tea Party" movement, you would know that it also contains many American people who are, or have been "of the political left" who are just as tired of the 2 major mistakes as we are here, as well as some right wingers.

Sorry to disappoint you but i do, go around "speaking" sensibly about everything you have seen on OLO & the punch. In fact some of the ideas, jokes have come from the other people i meet every day. So it all must be Mainstream, Moderate stuff, because it resonates with 80% to 90% of the population.

The reverse is true, i am afraid, as long as YOU are only associating with friends, family, other members of the red/green/getup/labour coalition then your own loony, left rubbish, is all you will hear.

Take the entire financial &/or active membership of the red/green/getup/labour coalition together with all other loony, left organisations. Add them all together, then divide that number into Australia's entire population. You will get an entirely different % figure to some bogus survey asking 1000 people leading questions about "motherhood & apple pie" issues.

Do try and be honest, Formersnag. I probably know about the Tea Party movement from the same media sources that you do, and they inform me that it is an overwhelmingly conservative, far Right movement. While there are a few disgruntled former Lefties, there is nothing moderate or mainstream about it as a political movement. Hell, they model themselves on the American revolutionaries.

<< ...as long as YOU are only associating with friends, family, other members of the red/green/getup/labour coalition >>

I own a small retail business that brings me into personal contact with virtually every member of the small, conservative rural community in which I live. I've never heard anybody here use the terms "paedophile femanazi" or "red/green/getup/labour coalition" in conversation, nor have I seen them written anywhere else except by you. In fact, you're the only person I've ever encountered anywhere who uses that terminology.

Mind you, I wish you well in your political endeavours. As I've said elsewhere, I encourage you to team up with the likes of our Boazy and campaign hard during the forthcoming Federal election campaign. You would undoubtedly provide some comic relief, if nothing else.

CJ Morgan is a classic isn't he?!
He claims that...
<<Also, as you seem to be unaware of what you write, there's nothing moderate or mainstream about the US 'Tea Party' movement either.>>
...and then provides access to link which headlines:
"Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics"
"PRINCETON, NJ -- Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.
Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
Keep that quality research and commentary coming in CJ.
I'd believe you before Gallup anyday.

Er, Proxy. We were talking about the Tea Party movement's political orientation, not their demographics. Do try and keep up.

You probably look deceptively normal too, demographically speaking.

Oh I see J,
Tea Partiers are mainstream but the Tea Party Movement is not.
At least it can be said that you're flexible in your reasoning.

CJ
Your argument amounts to nothing but name-calling. The idea that it's bad for something to be 'extreme' , in a democracy, depends on the idea that majority opinion is necessarily, or probably, correct or virtuous by contrast. But the majority are as capable of ignorance and greed as anyone else. In a polity dominated by authoritarian ideas, the idea of freedom will seem 'extreme'. So what? The question is whether an idea is better in ethics and in practice. I couldn't care less if the majority thinks rape or robbery or aggressive war is okay. If they do, it would be 'extreme' to criticise it, wouldn't it?

If you have a look at the American Constitution, you will find that over 80 percent of governmental activity in America today is explicitly in breach of it. Those who wrote the Constitution intended it never to happen, by making it illegal. A majority today perhaps *do* think aggressive war or unconstitutional thievery is okay. So what? The constitution is the justification for subjecting the population to the power of the government. If the people who wrote it were 'extremists', then there is no justification for the 'moderate' big-government consensus that dominates both left and rights wings of the American establishment, is there? But if they weren't, then there's still no justification for them, is there?

Formersnag
Thanks. I'm alternately drawn to and turned off by the idea of activism through a political party.

I couldn't digest that book at present because I'm travelling and internet cafes are inconvenient, and long usage requires chiropractic adjustment. Can you give it to me in a nutshell? I take it that it says there is a concerted movement worldwide by all kinds of authoritarian and socialist big-government types, all fantasising about how wonderful the world would be if only government had total control over anything and everything; all hell-bent on destroying individual liberty, and then blaming the planned chaos that results on not enough government? Would that be the gist of it?

Peter Hume, Spot on, all divisive isms & both sides of all wars, have been funded by the same group of "International Banksters" for several hundred years. Their masterstroke in divide & conquer being Fe"Man"Nazism.

The best example of their work being Australia. Where successive governments on both sides & all 3 levels, have been promoting more crime & division within the community followed by a LaurenOrder campaign of tougher laws on everything, together with more Police, Quasi Police, Courts, Tribunals every year.

Its easy, create poverty, which leads to more Crime, Hopelessness, Dysfunctionality, Lonelyness, Depression, Dependence on alcohol, drugs, welfare. Which means more Neglected, Abused Children who grow up Dysfunctional, Dependent on welfare, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.

Introduce "single motherhood" through the CSA plus Pension, plus Baby bonus. The CSA formula means MUM gets 3 or 4 times more money, if she has a different father for each child.

Introduce innovation to an education system that was arguably "Worlds Best Practice" between 1945 & the Mid 1960's when all this Moral & Ethical Degeneration began & you have an ever increasing army of failures, breeding like flies, while successfully educated middle & upper class families get smaller.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer & the middle class disappears.

The purpose of the 2 income household was to produce.

1, more zero income households.

2, An allegedly successful 2 income household addicted to Consumerism, McMansions, Big Screen TV's, Feeding more MSM BS, there is always an ism.

The same Author wrote a sequel after the 1987 stock market crash which i have not been able to obtain yet & another one later called "The Greening".

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

Which predicted "the greatest moral challenge of our time". The ETS, Economic Treason Scam which means means that "Carbon Default Swaps" can be traded endlessly by "Wall Street" with CDO's Carbon Debt Obligations, Derivative Forestry Futures, shares in Great Southern Plantations, Timbercorp etc. Then they can donate to "Green" NGO "Think Tanks".

Where do you think Penny Wrong, Peter Garrett & Bob Brown will be working after they collect their "Gold Pass"?

Nina,
I think your argument would be stronger if you noted the cases to which you refer here. For example, you note the landmark case (of Kabir) in 2003 at the High Court, but in the next few lines you claim that the decision had little effect, noting "Time and again the Australia Refugee Review Tribunal has proved itself to be breathtakingly obstinate and utterly insensitive towards those who apply for refugee status on the basis of their sexuality. Some of these decisions have been upheld by the highest courts in the land." As an example of this latter, you cite, and quote from, what appears to be the very case of Kabir. The rest of the article mixes up tribunal decisions with the decisions of various courts. And when you don't cite your sources, readers are given no basis on which to evaluate the argument you are making on the basis of those cases.
It is not that you are wrong in the broad lines of your argument, but it is riddled with inaccuracies as to the level and basis of the findings in these cases.
Helen Pringle

<<We have little tolerance for gays seeking asylum>>
and neither should we.
Why should Australia act against it's own self interest?