The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > We have little tolerance for gays seeking asylum > Comments

We have little tolerance for gays seeking asylum : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 28/5/2010

Homophobia exhibited within Australian courts and the community illustrates there's still intolerance to overcome.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 2:58:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 31 May 2010 3:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 31 May 2010 3:53:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 1:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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"?
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 8:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by isabelberners, Tuesday, 1 June 2010 4:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy