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.