"Another utterly shameful excuse for turning away from the misery of a group of entirely innocent kids."

If you have a good argument you would not need to resort to this kind of emotionally manipulative language. It is not a 'shameful excuse' it is an expresion of an opinion. "Misery of a group of entirely innocent kids" There are kids in the world who are starving to death in places of abject poverty - now that is misery. Being bullied in the school playground is pretty lame in comparison.

"The evidence is clear (see above), and the case is rock-solid for an intervention in support of this last group of bullying targets." If it is so clear and so rock solid then why do you feel the need to continue to argue the cause on these forums - surely all that has already been done in the research? Who are you really trying to convince?

"phanto, your arguments might sound reasonable to you, but they fail on three counts. They fly in the face of all the available research, they rely on punishment rather than intervention, and they deny natural justice to a group of victimised teenagers because the people who are defending them (prominent among them Rodney Croome) are personally distasteful to you. "

Research can be wrong . It has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. Researchers often find what they want to find.

I never said anything about punishiment. I said they should be 'dealt' with. This means that there should be consequences for those who refuse to obey codes of conduct like there are in any other place in society. In the school that could be anything from demanding an apology to detention or to facing the courts if the offence is serious enough.

It is very presumptious of you and shows a complete lack of respect and dare I say, a predujudice against me to infer that just because I have a different opinion to someone else I therefore find them 'personally distatesful'.

Deal with the substantive point, phanto. You’ve argued against anti-homophobia programs on the grounds that we shouldn’t be putting energy “into special programs for any particular interest group.” This is an arbitrary determination on your part, to the disadvantage of these victims. Regardless of which box you decide to put them in, the teenagers affected by homophobia don’t belong to any particular interest group. They just happen to be perceived as gay.

Choosing not to protect them because you’ve unilaterally determined that they belong to a “particular interest group” is shameful. Basta.

Yes, I’ve inferred that you have a distaste for homosexuals. I’ve inferred this from your refusal to allow targeted anti-homophobia programs on the grounds that they are associated with that “particular interest group.” I’ve also inferred it from: “... but I do not agree with them when they say their behaviour is natural.”

Concluding that you have a distaste for homosexuals is a logical inference from your statements, and you were the one calling for logic, remember?

I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong, phanto, but having failed to show support for victims of homophobia, somehow I doubt you’ll be telling me that you cherish the diversity that your same-sex-attracted neighbours bring to your life, and that you support the claims of same-sex-attracted people for equal rights.

On her website Jane Elliot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott, the anti-racism campaigner, has a list of typical statements which sound innocuous but actually reveal the prejudices of the speaker http://www.janeelliott.com/statements.htm Compare number 25 with these things you have written:
“Why don't homosexual people just ...”
“If they want to be taken seriously then it is incumbent on homosexual people in a democratic and civilised society ...”

These have reinforced my inference that you find homosexuals distasteful.

Before you tell me that I’m reading things into your statements that simply aren’t there, try replacing the word homosexual with jewish, or even Irish. Try arguing that aboriginal people don’t respond with reason and logic, and then maybe you’ll understand that your distaste is there for everyone to read.

... continued.

“Research can be wrong . It has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future.” Let me remind you, phanto, you were the one asking for a logical argument. The first step in any logical process is research, establishing the facts, and in the absence of contradictory facts, you take the steps indicated by the research. In the particular case in point, the Tasmanian Education Department has followed the direction indicated by the research, and the program has been shown to be a success. Yes, research can be wrong, but wrong research is not borne out by subsequent research and inquiries.

“Being bullied in the school playground is pretty lame in comparison.” Clearly you’ve had a fortunate life, in which you’ve never been bullied. That’s great, and I certainly wouldn’t wish it on you. However if you tried to put yourself in the position of a child who is forced to go to a school every day to be bullied, attacked and terrorised, you would be a little less glib with these comparisons.

For the victim, bullying is a paralysing, isolated and lonely experience, and the dread of it stays with them all their lives. Clearly you don’t know what it feels like, and most sincerely I hope it never touches anyone you love.

In any event, the existence of one wrong is no justification for refusing to act against another. The authorities don’t stop issuing parking fines because there are drunk drivers on the road, and the law doesn't ignore domestic violence cases because murders are also taking place.

You might personally decide that one wrong is more worthy of your attention than another, but please don’t try to stop others from addressing wrongs which you think are less important. The work in developing and delivering anti-homophobia programs is important, and effective. For the sake of the children involved, put your objections to the people promoting the programs aside, even if you can’t overcome your distaste.

" Regardless of which box you decide to put them in, the teenagers affected by homophobia don’t belong to any particular interest group."

Yes they do. They belong to a group of teenagers affected by 'homophobia' who just happen to be perceived as gay. I do not think there should be special programs for this particular group or any other particular group. There should be programs which aim to abolish all aggression and bullying and that by definition will include the group that you describe.

"Yes, I’ve inferred that you have a distaste for homosexuals."

What exactly does 'distasteful' mean? There are lots of behaviours that people indulge in that I do not think are the best behaviours for them but they have every right to indulge in them if they want to and if it does not impinge on the rights of others. I do not have any less respect for them than for anyone else. I do not think smoking is good for people but if they want to smoke then that is their right. I do not have any less respect for their rights than I would for a non-smoker.

"I also inferred it from: “... but I do not agree with them when they say their behaviour is natural.” "

So anyone who disagrees with you about anything must by this logic find you 'distasteful'.

"Before you tell me that I’m reading things into your statements that simply aren’t there, try replacing the word homosexual with jewish, or even Irish. Try arguing that aboriginal people don’t respond with reason and logic, and then maybe you’ll understand that your distaste is there for everyone to read."

But they do respond with reason and logic and I agree with their reason and logic. I just do not agree with the reason and logic put forth to explain some of the behaviour of homosexual people. I do not agree with the reason and logic of some other groups - it all depends on the argument they put forward and whether or not it seems reasonable.

Continued ...

"The first step in any logical process is research "

Maybe so but that does guarantee the outcome of the research will be logical or reasonable or right.

"Clearly you’ve had a fortunate life, in which you’ve never been bullied." There you go being presumptuous again. You have no idea what I am like. I may have been subject to far more bullying than you could imagine for all you would know. Just because I do not agree with you or the programs you are arguing for you presume I know nothing about being victimised and that I have no idea what compassion means.

"You might personally decide that one wrong is more worthy of your attention than another, but please don’t try to stop others from addressing wrongs which you think are less important."

Why not? We all have to make choices. I just do not agree with yours.

This discussion isn’t about choices, least of all mine, so on that subject you’re welcome to keep your opinions to yourself.

“Why not?” Glad you asked. Since your solutions to the problem of homophobic bullying are based on opinions (as you persist in telling us), they simply aren’t as good as measures based on research. Until you can show flaws in the particular pieces of research on which the Tasmanian Education Department has based the introduction of anti-homophobia programs, your claim that research is sometimes flawed doesn’t apply here.

You’re entitled to your opinions, but please don’t use them to undermine the excellent evidenced-based work which is being done in support of vulnerable kids.