The Judiciary and Bias.

1/ Will a bi-sexual supreme court judge give unbiased neutral judgments on cases of sexual misconduct ?

2/ Will an Aboriginal Magistrate give an unbiased judgment on an issue of Land Rights ?

3/ Will a Lebanese Muslim Magistrate give an unbiased judgment on a Middle Eastern youth accused of starting major race riots ?

4/ Will Jewish Federal court judge given an unbiased judgment in the case of Anti Semitism or regarding the case of a high profile Jewish retailing identity or those involved in insider trading ?

Unlikely ? 2 of the above have been reported in the media, and seem to indicate that based on track record, the answer to these questions should be ‘no’.

I contend, that in order to avoid any possibility of bias, Judges and Magistrates should be automatically barred from presiding over cases where they share the ethnicity, culture, or religion of the accused. With the exception of predominantly Australian judges of U.K. background. (in the broadest inclusive ethnic sense of that term)

Is this a ‘racist’ statement ? It boils down to a balance of probabilities. Due to the established order of Anglo Australians historically, and the predominance of the British background in most citizens, the likelihood of bias is minimal. There is no sense of ‘ethnic competition’.

On one issue I grant that there IS a strong likelihood of bias by Anglo background judges, and that is on the issue of Land Rights. It seems also the case that Judges are appointed with political flavor in mind. It goes without saying that this is the case, as positions for the ultimate courts in the land are so hotly contested by political parties, especially in the United States supreme court. I hardly think Australia and our High Court appointments are any different.

Looking at the ethno religious composition of the Victorian Federal court bench, one could be forgiven for gaining the impression that one particular socio/cultural/religious group is inherently superior in matters of Law, judging by their high representation.

Invariably, judges will find they can relate to one party more than another. There is little in practice that can be done about this.

The best we can do is to appoint judges who are highly trained in the principles of fairness, and who will strive to judge each case on its merits. Unfortunately, emotions and prejudices powerfully influence the way people, even judges, think. You David, are a perfect example of this - at times you obviously strive to be logical, but most who stand outside your religious frame of referrence, see that your logic is often distorted by your religious prejudices. It seems to be an unavoidable human failing which some manage better than others, but which no-one can entirely overcome. The worst thing is that almost everyone believes they are the only one not so affected.

It also doesn't help that so many of our judiciary are picked for political reasons rather than on merit. I wouldn't want to name names, but there is a certain aboriginal magistrate in NSW whose antics and decisions indicate such a lack of judicial credibility that one can only suppose she was selected for reasons other than merit.

Whilst I am unaware of the 'ethnic' group you are referring to in Victoria, (I'm in NSW), I was talking to a Victorian lawyer just the other day and he expressed the view that the Victorian judiciary is over-run with Bolsheviks. He was plainly being a little colourful with his language, but I think it's fair to say there is a bit of socialist philosophy entrenched in our judiciary (most of the judiciary were uni students 30+ years ago - think about it).

One recently retired Victorian judge apparently never found against a plaintiff in any civil litigation in his entire career. Now that hints at a powerful bias arising from a certain socialist mindset.

Boaz, basically what you’re saying is that only heterosexual judges from an Anglo background are capable of doing the job we’re paying them to do: that is, to apply the law, without prejudice. Any judge or magistrate who is not hetero, or of Anglo background (according to you) is incapable of doing their job under some circumstances.

This is an outrageous assertion, even for you.

If you have evidence that any of the judges or magistrates in the situations you have outlined have failed in their duties, then you should provide that evidence. Otherwise your suggestion seems like what you have rhetorically suggested: “racist”.

I am only vaguely familiar with one of the cases you have mentioned: that of a magistrate with Lebanese background sentencing an 18 year old Lebanese youth on assault charges. While I don’t have a complete knowledge of the evidence in the case, I cannot see any hint of impropriety or bias in her decision. The sentence was well within the range I would expect for such an offender and such an offence, given the details I have access to on the public record. The only unusual detail, as far as I am aware, is that she used their shared ethnicity to read the riot act Lebbo to Lebbo, making it very clear what behavior is expected of a young man of his ethnicity in an Australian context. It would have been hard for a non Lebanese magistrate to have included that element. Good on her for being creative. But if you reckon the sentence was soft, then you should explain why, and why the prosecution didn’t appeal.

The underlying assumption of your post is that there is one type of judge who is impartial, (Anglo and hetero) and all the others are suspect. The reality is that judges and magistrates all have life experiences which they will draw on in their sentencing. The important thing is that they stick to the law. If they're not doing this, then provide evidence to back your claim.

Hi Snout..thanx for taking the discussion further :)

I only feel 'non Anglo/Heterosexual' judges could be biased in cases where they encounter a 'natural' tendency to bias such as with an Aboriginal judge and a land rights case. I'm sure that in the wider aspects of the law, such a judge would be as impartial as the next.

The case of the Bisexual Sydney Judge was quite big at the time. He committed suicide when it all came out.
The media indicated that his record of decisions on cases of a sexual nature seemed to be more lenient than one would expect.

The sentence by the Lebanese magistrate should be seen in the bigger context of the Cronulla events, including the punishment dished out to someone who did 'nothing' to anyone, but was in the possession of a branch for self protection. Please re-read my other post.
'Anglo with branch'= Arrested, Convicted, Jailed for 4 months
'Lebanese up for Assault/Attack resulting in physical injury'= Lecture and Community service.

It just does not sound right to me.

As a spin off thought... "Oppression of a minority can result in isolated incidences of terrorism/ revenge.. but attacks on a majority can result in massive reprisals/genocide"

Sadly, we have had recent reports of gangs in Maroubra hunting Asians away from having a picnic. I don't know with confidence the racial aspect of that incident. But I do know one thing with confidence. Asians had nothing to do with the Cronulla background issues.

I am very concerned that an unthoughtout cultural policy which emphasizes diversity can only have one predictable result, and it is found in my last paragraph. The Judicial/Political element in mind for this thread is just part of the problem, where it 'could' be part of the solution.

The problem with emphasizing diversity is that when such things occur, they are always viewed with a suspicious Them/Us mentality by all sides.

Alternatively, a pro-active cultural/social policy could contribute to a more confident and most of all secure Anglo population, reducing the likelihood of knee jerk aggressive outbursts.

cheers

David, I think all sorts of biases exist across the whole judiciary. But for many individuals within it, no significant biases exist, but maybe seen to exist because of their racial, ethnic, cultural or religious background or past practices, comments or associations.

Bias in its broadest interpretation is automatic in people who see the same presentation in different ways or place different levels of significance on different aspects of it. This sort of bias is impossible to escape.

We can read bias into any decision that we don’t agree with.

So I really don’t think that the racial, ethnic, cultural or religious background of magistrates, politicians, police or anyone else involved in decision-making is of any particular level of significance.

What appears to be really significant is the buck-passing syndrome between law-enforcers and punishers (police and courts), whereby the police often do a substandard job and expect the courts to sort it out properly, while the courts think that if the person was charged in the first place, the police must have had a good reason and that their evidence or hearsay is gospel, unless there is very strong opposition expressed by the alleged offender or his counsel.

I get the feeling that this syndrome is chronic, especially with minor offences where people don’t have legal representation and don’t know when or how to properly stand up for themselves in court, let alone where actually going to court and defending one’s self is impractically much more expensive than the fine.

And my greatest concern – an appalling lack of regard for the ‘innocent-until-proven-guilty or shown-to-be-guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt’ dictum.

So, I do think that a very strong sense of bias exists within the judiciary. But it is only related to the aspects that you mention in a minor way.

Hi Ludwig

you said:

"So I really don’t think that the racial, ethnic, cultural or religious background of magistrates, politicians, police or anyone else involved in decision-making is of any particular level of significance".

I think that any bias would only reveal itself over a pattern of decisions rather than an individual one we disagreed with.

Funnily enough, when I wrote the piece I didn't have in mind the Catch the Fire case where bias was not so much the issue, it was simply a misunderstanding of the Evangelical Christian mindset.

Probably the Cronulla aftermath is where I detected a pattern.
But also, in the real world, it is probably impossible to escape our biases, specially when with 2 different magistrates the likelihood of the same sentence for the same offence and circumstance is low.

I would love to be a fly on the wall though of an Aboriginal judge and a land rights case :)
Still, even then, given the fact that the British used other Maoris to do most of the killing of their fellows (of different tribes) nothing would suprise me. An Aboriginal Judge might go even harder against his own... stranger things have happened.
Thanx for your thoughts.

Boaz, re the two Cronulla related trials and your earlier thread, you said, “The sentence by the Lebanese magistrate should be seen in the bigger context of the Cronulla events”.

This is exactly what I would expect a magistrate to be careful to avoid. Her job was to pass sentence on the case before her, not on the broader social conflict. There were many people, Lebbo and non-Lebbo, who behaved badly during that episode, but it is not up to the magistrate to make the kid a scapegoat for others who managed to avoid prosecution. She had to deal with the evidence of the young man’s crime and only his crime, and pass sentence accordingly, bearing in mind his youth and his previously clean record. Most magistrates (in Victoria at least) would want a very good reason for sending an 18 year old cleanskin into the adult prison environment, for the simple reason that you could pretty much guarantee that such a kid would come out worse than he went in. It would depend of course on the seriousness of Osman’s proven involvement in the assault, and I don’t have access to the court transcript to assess that, although the prosecutor would have, and could have appealed if the sentence was inadequate to the evidence. He/she didn’t.

As for the guy jailed for carrying a "branch", the story as you’ve set out has huge gaps. Presumably it wasn’t an olive branch. Osman’s case, you’ll note, took about ten months to be heard, which is pretty standard. There was obviously something else going on with this guy: the process was completely different and so I can’t see how you can compare the two cases. I reckon you’re being disingenuous to attribute the differences to race.

If you can find some more details about this guy it would be more helpful to the discussion, but it sounds to me like the slanted half truths I hear from crims nearly every day. You need to look a bit deeper for the real story.

Kalin, you wrote;

“The best we can do is to appoint judges who are highly trained in the principles of fairness, and who will strive to judge each case on its merits.”

Yes, we should demand the best level of training of this sort.

“Unfortunately, emotions and prejudices powerfully influence the way people, even judges, think.”

Absolutely. And this can and does override even the best training.

So we need to do more – we need to make judges accountable. This means finding that very difficult point of balance between respecting their authority and questioning their authority.

The last thing we want is for judges not to be accountable for their decisions, and to probably only be questioned in a roundabout manner after a whole series of judgements have indicated some bias or perceived bias. Everyone agrees that they are flawed human beings like the rest of us. So to give them autocratic powers without immediate accountability just doesn’t make sense. But that’s exactly what we have done.

Ludwig, judges and magistrates are accountable. Either the prosecution or the defence can appeal if they perceive there are errors of law or sentencing, and there is a hierarchy of courts to examine the findings of lower courts.

The media, governments, academic criminologists and other players regularly provide comment and feedback on sentencing, although in my view much of this is poorly informed and motivated by considerations other than getting the best possible results out of the criminal justice system. For example, politicans seeking election don't always let the facts get in the way of stirring up public anxiety about law and order if they reckon it could help garner a few extra votes, and it's common to see bidding wars to see who can promise to legislate for the "toughest" sentencing irrespective of whether such getting "tough" results in a safer or more just community. Most punters aren't very sophisticated in their understanding of criminal justice issues. Similarly, it's very easy for journalists at the shock jock end of the spectrum to tell crime stories very selectively in order to galvanise their particular tribal followings.

I'm open to David's suggestion of the potential for racially based bias in the judiciary, although I'm pretty skeptical: of his four "examples" two are entirely speculative and the other two the evidence provided isn't enough to support his assertion. My job has me in daily contact with sentenced crims, and often access to more detail as to the circumstances of offences and offenders, as well as the workings of the court systems than are available in the media. I'm no bleeding heart, but my experience of the broader picture than might be available through tabloid reporting leads me to reckon the courts actually get it pretty right most of the time. And it's pretty easy to spin a story to your advantage when you don't reveal all the facts.

Snout, judges are only accountable up to a point. And in my experience, it s a pretty low point.

Sure people can appeal, if they feel strongly enough about it to go through another round of highly stressful and frustrating….and expensive legal wrangling….and usually with a low chance of success.

With minor infringements or alleged infringements, this doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it should, which basically means that judges are not anywhere near as accountable as they should be.

You mention a whole set of apparent checks and balances. Well, I’m sure they achieve a reasonably good level of accountability a lot of the time. But we also hear much criticism of decisions and sentences without any apparent modification in decision-making from those being criticised. This whole business of magistrates being soft on ‘minor’ criminal behaviour is a case in point.

I would love to know how a magistrate found me guilty of failing to show due care to other road users five years ago when I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, which was borne out in court comprehensively. It was blatantly obvious to me that the magistrate was holding solidarity with the police and that the onus was on me to prove my innocence, and not on the prosecution to prove my guilt or indicate it beyond a reasonable doubt, which of course is contrary to one of the most basic tenets of our legal system and democracy.

I ‘chose’ to take the matter to court in the first place, which was many times more expensive than the maximum possible fine. I had faith in the system and thought that I couldn't possibly lose. Obviously I wouldn't have bothered if I thought the chances of not winning were at all significant. Well, what an eye-opener!

I was well on the way to taking it to an appeal, but the costs and time required were just so extraordinarily disparate with the magnitude of the issue that I felt as though I was forced to drop the matter.

The examples that BD and others have provided here indicate more a problem with leniency than with bias.

Where a judgement has been deemed lenient, a post-facto glance has found the judge to be a member of a particular minority and (Ahah!), the cause for the leniency has been attributed to the membership of that minority, rather than to the judge’s reading of the case.

Judges are not required to switch off their beliefs, or their membership of minority groups, when they sit on the bench. Neither would we want them to. We need judges to bring their entire humanity to their judgements, while interpreting the law and balancing the needs of society, victims and (yes) perpetrators.

This requires them to be aware of their biases, and to put them aside. Where this is not possible, we require them to step down from particular cases, and generally they do.

Punishment is only part of what judges do. I wish BD would reflect on his own biases before assailing us with this stuff

Ludwig, I reckon that's a fair point: there's an inherent bias in the system where the costs of seeking justice over relatively minor issues make the system weighted against small players. Presumably you might have done better if you'd had a high powered legal adviser on your side, but you'd almost certainly have been worse off financially.

I've never faced court myself, but a few years ago a friend challenged a transport fine, and I helped him develop his case. Having no legal background or even any direct experience of court procedure between us it took a lot of work and guesswork to find what turned out to be glaring holes in the prosecution's case and to be able to present them in an acceptable way. My guess is that a trained experienced barrister would have demolished their case in seconds. We treated the experience as a learning exercise (my friend won) but it wouldn't have otherwise been worth our while. Non lawyers are certainly behind the eight ball in minor cases.

I don't think this is the sort of bias that David's talking about, though.

Judges decisions can be appealed, but that is not the same as making judges answerable for bad decisions. There are quite a few judges whose decisions are regularly overturned on appeal, and yet they are never censured or pulled into line in any meaningful way.

The media are probably the least reliable means of policing the judicary, since rather than looking for bad decisions they devote most of their efforts looking for controversy, and all too often, if they cannot find it, make it up. 4 in 5 times I've read of an horrendous court decision in the newspaper, upon reviewing the actual judgment, it has turned out the journalist has glossed over important issues in order to make the judgement controversial.

Whatever it's failings, our court system is better than the press would have us believe.

In relation to the difficulties people face when dealing with minor offences and the apparent presumption of guilt inherent in the system, I suspect this too is overstated. I once challenged a parking ticket and had to sit in the local court all day before my case was heard. I probably saw around 12 minor matters plus one criminal assault case, all run by the same police prosecutor. By the end I felt sorry for the guy because he didn't succeed against a single defendant, including myself. Only in the criminal case was the defendant represented represented.

The real bias in the system is that justice is just plain too expensive, but unfortunately you get what you pay for.

kalin..I have to agree with that point about access to justice being too expensive.

W.... I do have biases..for sure, and I'm quite open about them I think... (correct me if I'm wrong).

I would not like to sit as a judge on a case involving say homosexual behavior, because my Christian biases would surely emerge.
For example, if the issue was accomodation and a neighbour objected to a homosexual couple moving in next door, I would find in favor of the complainant. So, in such a case, if I had to uphold a law regarding non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I would prefer not to have to decide the case.

I have a very passionate sense of community values, and they are very much Christian based.

I'm glad you stated 'judges are not required to switch of their beliefs' :)

But, not being a judge it does not impact me personally on that side of the bench.

The point about appeal is worthwhile but seems to be countered by the cost factor. No wonder Jesus condemned the Lawyers "You make burdens hard for men to bear, but carry nothing yourselves"

I applaud the willingness of some lawyers to work pro-bono, but you can only work for free for so long, and the bills still come in.

Boaz, you just made my jaw drop with your last post. Are you seriously suggesting that it is even remotely reasonable (let alone within cooee of the law) to object to a neighboring couple living next door because they are gay? In 2006? In Australia? Have I completely misunderstood what you’re saying there?

Dear Snout...no, you did not misunderstand me ... (BOAZ puts on the body armour)

While you might find such a position objectionable, I not only feel this way, but with a passion.

You made a key statement "In this day..in 2006".... which is probably the best thing you could have said to give me a handle on which to respond.

As I've maintained often, the change of public perception about homosexual behavior and lifestyle has not been an overnight event.
It has been 'incremental' and the result of a sustained campaign of activism over a long period, mainly since the 60s.

I watched this unfold..step by step...increment by increment until now, we see the full 'journey' b4 our eyes.

As I reflect, and now observe social trends, I am noticing the 'SAME' arguments and the same embryonic activism by groups such as NAMBLA and in the netherlands a political party advocating Paedophilic policies.

So, it is with considerable confidence that I put forward the position of a framework 'enduring social values' in the Judao Christian tradition.

Now..this is the part where all my woffle just now actually does relate to the topic..... "bias" in the Judiciary, and it connects with my first example 'a bi-sexual judge' and his pattern of decisions.

Now.. I fully understand your 'jaw dropping' at this line of thinking.
But consider this. My jaw dropped when I read Nambla quoting prominent psychologists as saying "Sexual experiences between adult men and boys can be quite health" then they point to social icons such as Walt Witman to seek support for their views.

This is all part of the democratic struggle.. my views...your views..public forums... its all good

Doh! Of course it’s not just a concern with leniency, it’s also BD’s obsession with homosexuality.

Well, now we have a better idea of how far BD’s respect for the law extends.

Personally, it scares the crap out of me that there are people walking around in this country who place their own filthy prejudices above the law.

Holding those prejudices openly doesn’t make them in any way forgiveable. Further, saying, ‘well that’s just how I am’ is no justification. Civilised human beings accept how others are, to the extent that third parties are not harmed.

Please don’t respond that pedophilia damages people, BD, because your problem is with homosexuality, and you use the unrelated issue of pedophilia as a phoney justification for your ill will.

Unlike homosexuality, your hate damages many, not directly, as I’ve been pointing out in another thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#58475, but by providing the environment in which homophobic violence thrives.

I suspect you’re not one of those wielding the baseball bats http://snipurl.com/ztfz, BD, but when you claim the right to hold your prejudice above the law, you make yourself complicit in the suffering of gay people all over the world.

Dear W
my concern is primarily for a robust, enduring and healthy moral values framework in which we can all live.

I have to correct you on one thing. My 'obsession' as u put it, is not with 'homosexuality' it is with homosexual BEHAVIOR.. I'm equally 'obsessed' with the dangers of Bratz dolls.

My use of the Nambla and Padophile issues was in connection with the pattern of political/social activism which was used by the Gay Lobby to erode the standards which stood in the way of them persuing such things as Gay Mardi Gras and the Melbourne event the article you referred to.

We don't have special 'we are straight' events. We just have 'events' and any special event which promotes and glorifies deviate sexual behavior of ANY kind is in my humble view not socially ok.

We should do nothing which facilitates or makes easier, behavior which is socially harmful. We can disagree with what the nature of such behavior/actions is, but we cannot disagree that it is my (and your) democratic right to persue a political social agenda which I see as right.

I reject the view that my approach creates an atmosophere which encourages violence against homosexuals. At the same time, if people wish to throw mud in my face, they should not be surprise if I try to move the mud from their reach. "In your face" exhibitions of sexual devience is not the way to discourage violence or reaction. The way to avoid that is twofold.

1/ Be discreet and out of sight with such behavior.
2/ Educate people to avoid violence outside the law against others.

People can have their own struggles with their sexuality, whether it be with same sex, child or beast, but they can have that struggle without legal support.
If a man has paedophilic tendencies, we would expect such a man to DEAL with them and NOT to act on them. Same goes with homosexual behavior. Nambla says "It is not harmful"... Gays say "consenting adults are not harmful".... who is right ?

W,

Your being wrong headed about this. Sure DB wears his religious bias on his sleeve and sure his beliefs are contrary to the legal position but that does not mean BD should be censured for expressing his opinion.

The current law only came about because people expressed positions opposing the previous laws. By all means point out the flaws in his intolerant position; but it is fundamental to our democracy that citizens are free to question laws - not disobey them, but question and debate them.

Fortunately, for the very reasons our society has become more liberal and tolerant, we can be confident that DB and his religious kin will not succeed reversing legal progress.

DB, the bible is just a book, and the New Testament was largely compiled by the Romans for political reasons. There is wisdom in some of the dogma, but it is mixed with the prejudices and intolerance of those who wrote the passages and selectively compiled the writings which make it up. It is no basis for law.

Contrary to what W said in an earlier post, judges are required to set aside their personal prejudices and beliefs when making rulings.

DB, in your example, you would be unfit as a judge if you chose to impose your own personal beliefs ahead of the clear law. A devout Christian judge in the position of your example would still be obliged to source his decision in the law. A judges 'prime directive' is to uphold the laws of the land, as set down by Parliament. Personal beliefs might be permitted judicial expression when Parliament and the common law are silent on an issue, but this is very rare.

I agree Kalin
as I thought I said...I would need to disqualify myself from judging a case on homosexual behavior because of those biases I hold.

I don't think I want to go so far as to re-criminalize homosexual behavior, though the thought does cross my mind.

Your comment about 'invented largely by the Romans' for the New Testament.... believe it or not, that is probably the ONE take on the N.T. for which there could be said to be some slivers of suggestive evidence. I've not actually heard that one before, most people just woffle on about 'contradictions' and 'Hellenistic influence' and 'mystery religions'.

But the passages which at first site might seem to support your claim, such as Romans 13 in particular, are more an expression of Christian loyalty to the state, simply as a function of being a good citizen.
If Paul wrote it with the Authorities in mind, he would have done so because he was in fact a Roman citizen and to hopefully have something to point to in order to demonstrate loyalty to the state and avoid on-going persecution.

I'd recommend some serious reading on the major books of the N.T. ranging from the 'higher critical' to the 'conservative'.
I don't think your view has much weight in the light of the evidence.
Still, its good to get a variety of views expressed.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
for a conservative approach.
cheers

Boaz, I had to have a bit of a think about whether it’s worthwhile responding to that juicy baited hook you dangled before my quivering whiskery nostrils the other day, but I’ve decided I can’t help myself.

I had to “wikipedia” NAMBLA to try to work out if such an organization still exists outside of the South Park episode when Cartman joins them. I was vaguely aware of them as the devil-incarnate during the seventies and eighties, but as far as I’m aware, these days they’re simply a tiny, extremely marginalised group of creepy guys in the US with a bizarre agenda and a website – a bit like NARTH, but on the other end of the extremist spectrum. To suggest they enjoy anything other than revulsion from mainstream gay rights movements is a bit like saying the Southern Baptist Convention is really a front for the Ku Klux Klan. The linking of paedophile agendas with gay rights is really a bit tiresome, and it would be offensive if it wasn’t so ludicrous. Saying if you support gay rights you’re in favour of child abuse is like saying if you’re Christian you support witch burnings or the Oklahoma bomber.

The fact is, the growing acceptance of homosexual unions between consenting adults has not been paralleled by increased tolerance of child sexual abuse. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred over the past 30 or 40 years. My guess is that child sex abuse is not only far less tolerated than previously, but is also probably much less common now, too, because of a greater awareness. This is a difficult proposition to prove, however, since sexual assault generally is massively underreported, and children abused 30 or 40 years ago were unlikely to have been believed, let alone had their complaints adequately dealt with. Fortunately this is changing, although some institutions, notably the churches, have been notoriously tardy in taking the issue seriously.

Cont below:

There’s obviously a broader debate to be had about what you call “enduring social values”, which probably belongs on a new thread. My guess is that the growing acceptance of adult homosexuality, and the taking seriously of the previously hidden problem of child abuse are part of a broader shift in the past few decades in the ways we think about sexuality. These shifts are, it’s pretty clear, of some concern to you.

I’d be happy to debate some of these issues with you (body armor optional), but I’d hope that we could keep some perspective: NAMBLA is a tiny extremist group that barely even exists any more let alone has any credibility whatsoever, and the proposed Dutch paedophile party that has so many people hot under the collar has failed (according to wikipedia) to get even the paltry 570 signatures required for its registration even in libertarian Netherlands

I don't suppose Bosie would welcome Howard's somewhat belated admission in today's news that homosexuals are systematically disadvantaged in our society, and has announced that his government will act to redress this in some areas?

Bosie,

"For example, if the issue was accomodation and a neighbour objected to a homosexual couple moving in next door, I would find in favor of the complainant."

Granted this is one of many things discussed in here and I am singling it out. Granted also that it is just one example of the things that you consider you couldn't judge fairly but...That sounds a bit steep don't you reckon?

We aren't talking about homosexual marriages or homosexual priests. We are talking about people living next door.

I invite your explanation as to how this is Christian.

WOW... what a banquette :)
Snout.. I'm warming to your sense of humor.. and sense of restraint.. well done. Regarding Nambla, I haven't checked their status for a while. Probably a year. I simply make the observation that they are trying the same arguments used by the gay lobby back in th 60s.
I was not connecting adult homosexual behavior with paedophilia. I was just noting the similarity of strategies for social change.

mjbp.. my only justification for the neighbour thing, is cultural.
The Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexual behavior/acts, as much as incest and bestiality. The clear implication is that in the social realm such activity cannot be condoned or encouraged. For a Christian to have a neighbour who is engaging in acts which are 'an abomination' to God, would not be comfortable. So, in this case it boils down to the democratic right of any citizen to promote laws which cater to their value system.
I accept that I'm probably a bit of a loner on this one.

One beautiful example of 'bias' or at least 'selective sentencing' came out today.
Example 1. 'The Leb Muslim who was convicted of STARTING the riot by actual bodily harm and violence, was given 300 hours community service and a lecture.
Example 2. An Anglo man who wore a T-shirt insulting Mohammed was jailed for 12 months.

Quite a disparity I would say.

C.J. sorry.. got distracted in the middle of that last post and failed to respond to your point.

I freely admit that there is legislative discrimination against homosexuals. Why should I deny it ?

There is also legislative discrimination against many behaviors.

“The Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexual behavior/acts, as much as incest and bestiality. The clear implication is that in the social realm such activity cannot be condoned or encouraged.”

So if I was to say that they need somewhere to live and just letting them live next door is not condoning their behaviour but just providing them with their rights I would be vulnerable to the accusation of hypocrisy if I didn’t accept a pedophile moving in next door? I’ll have to think about that one.

“For a Christian to have a neighbour who is engaging in acts which are 'an abomination' to God, would not be comfortable.”

You may be surprised what your neighbours already get up to.,,

“So, in this case it boils down to the democratic right of any citizen to promote laws which cater to their value system.”

What would be the law?

”I accept that I'm probably a bit of a loner on this one.”

Probably just more honest than many. There are many people with the Seinfeld (disgusted look) “I’m not gay! (pause to think) Not that there is anything wrong with that!” approach who say whatever is politically correct. At least some of them would probably agree with you (privately).

“There is also legislative discrimination against many behaviors.”

And may people. As much as it has become a dirty word the word simply means to make distinctions. Children get discriminated against all the time.

mjbp...on 'what would be the law' yep...thats a difficult one.

There has to be a reference point. Then laws can be drafted accordingly.

When homosexual behavior was a criminal offense, it was easy.
Since (due to organized political activism) it has been decriminalized, it is a challenge.

One problem is that if a couple moves in next door, and we are teaching our children that such behaviors are unacceptable to God, even worse an abomination, on par with incest etc...it would be most difficult to avoid some kind of outward attitude by our children towards such people. If the residents of a street all felt the same, then it would be worse for such a couple. Look at how communities act towards child molestors among them.

Perhaps it would be best to bring such an issue to local council, and consider it as a 'community sexual health/values' initiative and even make a planning law which prevents homosexual couples from living together in that area.

It boils down to "is this behavior ok...or not" "ok" meaning in the deeper moral sense.

My daughter was actually going to LIVE with a gay man who is one brother of her best female friend. The family thought he had a crush on my daughter ! But he 'came out' a while back.

Knowing this chap personally, and having a family f'ship connection, I would not like to add to this fellows sense of rejection, (real or imagined) but at the same time, not deplete our sense of community moral acceptability.
Him 'being' what he is,... is one thing. But "Being" that... as a couple next door, is another. There we have social values ramifications. Example, influence etc.

I'll keep thinking about it along the lines of

a) Not 'punishing' such a person for their sense of sexual identity.
b) Protecting the community from undue influence of such a lifestyle/orientation.

cheers

BD,

"One problem is that if a fundy couple moves in next door, and I'm teaching my child that such attitudes are unacceptable to humanity, even worse an abomination, on par with other extremists etc...it would be most difficult to avoid some kind of outward attitude by my child towards such people. If the residents of a street all felt the same, then it would be worse for such a couple. Look at how communities act towards child molestors among them."

On the other hand I could teach my kid to accept that while I don't agree with extremists the world has them, and that it is not acceptable to try and stop what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

My kid my be exposed to their sick attempts to turn them to an sad belief system but hopefully I've trained them to look at how well the words they are told match the reality of the fundies lives.

Yes it would be nice to have our neighbourhoods and workplaces free of the uncomfortable presence of biggoted fundies but to try and do so raises a whole bunch of other problems. Better to to let them live in the community and make sure they keep their beliefs between consenting adults and in private.

R0bert

Rob,

"One problem is that if a fundy couple moves in next door, and I'm teaching my child that such attitudes are unacceptable..."

ROFL. For the record it is an unfair comparison (from my perspective not yours) but very witty.

Bosy,

It is nice to be concerned about the cool reception of the neighbours. The homosexual couple may not make many friends in the neighbourhood but wouldn't it be nicer for them if they can live and let live so to speak without everyone trying to be their buddies then to actually be refused accomodation in the street?

mjpb, what is ROFL?

If the comparison is unfair it's probably unfair to the gay couple rather than the fundies. My guess is that they are less likely to try and convert my son or me to their ways. They are less likely to have a dozen similar minded individuals over every wed night who all sing that bit louder so that the neighbours get to hear their songs of praise. They are probably less likely to be watching who stays over or worrying about what I do or don't wear in my backyard.

I'm not talking about all christains there, I have some very good christain friends who I'd love to have across the fence but I've been around enough fundies to know some reasons why fundies might not make great neighbours.

You are spot on in your suggestion about live and let live. Attempts to deny someone a place to live for any reason other than that they pose a real risk to their neighbours safety are an ugly form of biggotry.

A known child molester next door might fall into the category of a risk to my son's safety. They don't limit their activities to consenting adults.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert "ROFL" is internet-speak for "Rolling On the Floor Laughing" :)

I have to say, I'm quite shocked that Boaz would hold such strong beliefs against homosexuality that he would contemplate arranging a community injunction against the right of someone to live in his street.

With such attitudes in the community, no matter how marginal, it is no wonder the few gay people that I know feel so uncomfortable in the world. How horrible for them to know that such... hate and disdane exists on something they cannot choose anymore than other people can choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

And back on topic, I would certainly expect any judge trained in the Australian legal system to be able to draw a clear and distinct line between whatever personal beliefs they hold, and the law which they are applying. In which case, Boaz's theoretical case would surely fail. And thank goodness for that.

Laurie, don't be too shocked this is the same BD who wrote

"Ok.. I book your 9 yr old daughter to add to my 50 yr old wife." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2036
and later on the same thread

"Its as plain as dogs balls on a grasshopper that a man over 50 with existing wives and who marries again to a 9 or 15 or 18 yrs old, is going to be more sexually interested in HER than in the 'old wrinklies'... " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2085

and yet later "The underlying premise of course is that old men appreciate young girls. Get it ? But you are above such things right ? " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2499

So gays are so bad that we should try and keep them out of our streets but old men who find nine year old girls sexually appealing (and who don't understand men who don't) are fine.

I'd happily welcome gays next door but spare me from fundies with an expressed sexual interest in 9 years olds.

R0bert

Quite so, Robert. As the father of a 9-year old daughter I also found the implications of that post very disturbing, and called Boaz on it. However, as it's pretty obvious that Boaz's expressed ideas about morality, diversity etc. are somewhere beyond the lunatic fringe, I doubt whether anybody mcuh takes anything he posts here on such topics very seriously.

To resturn to the topic, while our judiciary is obviously less than perfect, it does have the virtue of excluding from its ranks loonies who would act in the ways that Boaz says he would if he were in such a position.

CJ Morgan, I've struggled a bit since making that post wondering if there is any chance I've misunderstood his words and that he was not really expressing an interest in 9 year old girls or suggesting that they are somehow more attractive than an adult woman. He also seems to suggest in his comment to you that he does not believe that others don't share his interest in 9 years olds.

I both hope that I'm wrong and hope I'm not - if I'm wrong then it's an ugly attack which is not the way I like to post, if I'm not then the views he has expressed are very disturbing.

I don't think he follows through on his interests, but do think that he should seek professional help (not a church councellor).

9 year old's don't have adult sexual characteristics, they don't have adult intellectual or emotional development, how can they possibly be considered as appealing for any kind of adult relationship?

Trying to use the biblical David having an older teenage girl as an electric blanket in his old age (strange enough as that is) as an excuse to ignore his own issues does not help.

And BD is concerned about a Mossie mayor abusing his position to ban ham sandwiches at council functions (I've never had a free sandwich at a council function) or what two consenting adults might do next door.

The point about bias and the judicary has some merit when you think about people bringing those kids of views to official positions, but it's not just the non-christains we should be concerned about.

Someone once said something about specks and planks, who was that?

R0bert

Robert -

Yes, well I'd be quite appalled if all that was on offer at an official reception was ham sandwiches. If for no other reason that my partner, who is vegetarian, would have nothing to eat. For her, nosh like felafel, hommus and tabbouli are truly a 'godsend' at public occasions. Not only that, but it's delicious and healthy.

I live in a rural area, but we somehow seem to manage it.

Maybe the problem is the agglomeration of huge numbers of people in horrible suburban environments? Where people actually have the opportunity to know each other, IMHO notions like 'assimilation' become redundant, because individual people become integrated within the community, while retaining their cultural identity.

Cheers :)

Robert,

"Ok.. I book your 9 yr old daughter to add to my 50 yr old wife."

I recall seeing that in the thick of things. It was a comment about Mohammed’s alleged sexual behaviour wasn’t it? Actually that was the other Bosy comment that stood out as disagreeable but I never got around to pursuing it. I assumed at the time, and I’d like to think, it was just poor expression and invite Bosy to explain what he meant. I would have thought that a 50 year old had more to offer than a pre-sexual child.

“If the comparison is unfair it's probably unfair to the gay couple rather than the fundies. My guess is that they are less likely to try and convert my son or me to their ways…”

Increasingly, I think you are probably incorrect. That is certainly the history and certainly true earlier in my life time. However these days Christians don’t seem to do any efforts to convert and if you read a few threads in these forums homosexuals are constantly promoting.

These forums also suggest that perhaps Christians don’t have time to evangelize as they are too busy defending themselves from slander.

mjpb, I've not seen a single post on OLO (or any other type of communication) where a gay is suggesting that I should become one.

I've not read a single article suggesting that being gay is the answer for every human being. I've never had to dodge a gay on the streets trying to hand me a tract which tells me that I'm in for an eternity of suffering if I don't turn gay. I've not seen a single taxpayer subsidised school with a stated objective of turning kids into gays.

About the only major gay event I'm aware of is the mardi-gras. Not something I personally like, but trivial compared to the public celebration of the christain faith in this country.

I've seen christains doing pretty much all of the above (their version of it anyway) on numerous ocasions. I've seen hundreds of posts by BD and others on this site attempting to evangelise other posters (almost regardless of the topic).

I have read plenty of articles suggesting that gays be allowed to live their lives with the same legal rights as others (hardy promotion of homosexuality). I've read posts by gays and straights supporting the rights of gays to make their own choices but again none promoting the need for straights to go gay.

Maybe you hang around with a more considerate type of christain than some I've come across.

As I said elsewhere I know some christains who are really good people, some bordering on fundy but doing so with some respect for the rights of others to choose differently. It's not an attack on all christans but a statement about those who attack the freedoms using their version of their faith as justification.

R0bert

mjpb,

"However these days Christians don’t seem to do any efforts to convert and if you read a few threads in these forums homosexuals are constantly promoting."

Promoting what?

This is actually a serious question.

Great post, Robert.

mjpb: yes, promoting what, exactly?

Thank you, Robert.

Entirely to the point.

I could add that religious organisations also make lavish use of public funds. Like the four million dollars for the restoration of Sydney's St Mary's Cathedral, or the subsidies for the upcoming catholic youth convention in 2008.

Not to mention the fact that every dollar donated to a church is subsidised by a deduction from the donor's marginal tax rate. This applies even if the church uses the funds to produce anti-gay propaganda.

The gay event you mentioned receives no public funding, and I'm not aware of any gay rights lobby groups for whom donations are tax deductible.

Snout & CJ,

I don't mind the question at all as I deliberately stopped short. But in the flood of gay persuasion communication it is hard to pin things down with a nice definition. I'll try. There seems to be a broad range that could only be characterised as what homosexuals consider their issues. The concerning ones are generating hatred and disdain for other groups or displays of disrespect for a culture.

Rob,

"I've not seen a single post on OLO (or any other type of communication) where a gay is suggesting that I should become one."

Neither have I seen but I have heard. There was a magazine article I was aware of but I didn't read it. Someone who had told me that it essentially told men the advantages of being gay. I had someone who I did business with verbally taking a similar approach. It was like a sales pitch attributing personality disadvantages to the opposite sex and suggesting that they could be avoided by crossing the fence. Thinking about it that must have happened at least twice. Another that comes to mind is a persuasive attempt centred on the advantages of oral sex from the same sex.

When was the last time you had to dodge someone on the street to avoid a tract? That used to happen in my lifetime but I haven't seen it for a long time. Have you?

Many Christian schools have non-Christian teachers hostile toward Christianity and curriculum resulting in virtually all the kids becoming atheists. They all claim to have an objective but in many cases it is historical and is that objective definitely to convert them or to maintain them?

"About the only major gay event I'm aware of is the mardi-gras. Not something I personally like, but trivial compared to the public celebration of the christain faith in this country."

Christmas and Easter?

I am not sure that it would make much point arguing about our experiences with Christians or gays because they are clearly different. However I'm surprised that you haven't noticed a change.

Mjpb,

You completely failed to address Rob and others' concerns with your previous email.

Your statement that you've heard of a magazine article promoting the advantages of being gay and your anecdotal experience of someone giving you a gay sales pitch do not justify your earlier assertion: "... if you read a few threads in these forums homosexuals are constantly promoting."

You're being dishonestly alarmist.

mjpb, "When was the last time you had to dodge someone on the street to avoid a tract? That used to happen in my lifetime but I haven't seen it for a long time. Have you?" - probably about three weeks ago and I've not used my normal city train station much in the last two weeks. We still get them around Brisbane streets fairly regularly.

A lot of local churches also have a habit up having large sign boards out the front where the minister puts his witty comment for the week to show passing motorists. Often evangelistic in nature.

Others have already made the point about the difference between your claims of homosexuality being promoted on OLO vs having heard about an article somewhere (or some people giving you their testemony). I have seen some guys on this site expressing views about women similar to the ones you mention but to the best of my knowledge they are straight guys who have been badly burned by the family law system. Not really gay promotion.

I can't see any "flood of gay persuasion communication". Barely a trickle as long as I don't look at a section of the magazine rack at the newsagents.

My understanding is the more traditional church schools such as the Anglican ones tend to have staff members from a variety of beliefs but that most of the newer ones associated with evangelical churches tend to go for an all staff are christains approach. I've seen a number of documents from different schools which all have the same message.

Some samples of regional schools I'm familiar with.

http://www.kings.net.au/college_Site/staff.htm and http://www.kings.net.au/college_Site/philosophy.htm

http://www.redlands.qld.edu.au/Overview/school_main.htm

http://www.calvarycc.qld.edu.au/Main.aspx?ArticleID=b41f0330-1ce5-41c1-8804-965600f91c9f&AreaID=a958b018-ae0d-427c-b893-628537325981

http://www.calvarycc.qld.edu.au/Main.aspx?ArticleID=9dc26e32-e85f-40bf-9738-965600f8d98c&AreaID=a958b018-ae0d-427c-b893-628537325981

http://hcc.auzgc.com/mission.asp
http://hcc.auzgc.com/staff.asp

That should give you a start on the evangelism and employement discrimination stuff.

Part 1 of 2

R0bert

Part 2 of 2

mjpb,

Christmas and Easter but also a variety of other public celebrations. I gather Billy Graham's boy was out not so long ago. You could also consider christain prayers in parliment.

I don't know the public funding for differing christain events but did hear the other day that a muslim event being held up here had received a large sum of money to help stage that event ($20K I think). That may come out of a different bucket to the ones the churches can get at.

w - I don't think that it is the case that all donations to churches are tax deductable. Churches get a bunch of tax and rates breaks but general offerings did not used to be tax deductable.

R0bert

“You completely failed to address Rob and others' concerns with your previous email.”

Rob can take care of himself. But what concerns does he have that need to be addressed?

”Your statement that you've heard of a magazine article promoting the advantages of being gay and your anecdotal experience of someone giving you a gay sales pitch do not justify your earlier assertion: "... if you read a few threads in these forums homosexuals are constantly promoting."”

They were just a response to "I've not seen a single post on OLO (or any other type of communication) where a gay is suggesting that I should become one."

Is it possible you have skipped a few posts including the promoting discussion?

”You're being dishonestly alarmist.”

I hope not. What are you alarmed about? Bosy apparently denying human rights or something to do with the concerns you referred to?

“about three weeks ago“

There you go. O : It still happens.

”Others have already made the point …”

Please everyone feel free to read everything I write even if I address it to Snout.

Thank you for elaborating on the school thing and for distinguishing between the types of schools.

“That should give you a start on the evangelism and employement discrimination stuff.”

That is probably a good way to characterize it.

”Christmas and Easter but also a variety of other public celebrations. I gather Billy Graham's boy was out not so long ago. You could also consider christain prayers in parliment.”

I expect Billy’s boy’s audience were probably mainly Pentecostal and it wasn’t broadcast on TV but it was presumably technically public (does the audience pay a fee and does that change anything?). The public are entitled to watch the proceedings of parliament (if they can stomach it) so that is public too …

mjpb, you may be correct about the make up of the audience at Junior Graham's do but I've always had the impression that dad at least was not penticostal (I don't know much about junior).

You are correct I've not read every post and may have missed a gay promotion thread but I'm fairly confident that if such posts exist they are very rare compared to the ongoing attempts to evangelise by some christain posters.

"Please everyone feel free to read everything I write even if I address it to Snout." was that a tongue in cheek comment, if so don't expect anything posted on a forum to be private. Not sure if I understood you there.

We've drifted somewhat off topic here. My central point is that BD's original premise about the judicary and minorities falls kind of flat when you consider how extreme and biased the views of some others can be.

The suggestion that homosexuals should be denied housing because somebody else might not want to live next to them being a case in point. I make the point that some christains might be a lot more difficult to live next door to than a gay couple (but not all). I've supported that view with some reasons and we seem to have got bogged down in debating the fine points.

BD does have a point, the judicary needs to keep their own issues out of their jobs and should be accountable for that. Where he misses is in the idea that christain white guys are better able to do so than others.

R0bert