Part One.

This is NOT a thread about either of the above people. It is a thread about the reactions to them.

I have little interest in either. My only admiration for Hanson was her guts in going into the political palace and shaking the complacency out of the smug self-serving bunch who feel they own it. That's about it. I have no interest in Henson. Surprise.

What I find so compelling is something that I find common to both of these people.

Overnight on Sunday I spent over three hours going over every thread and every post on Hensonart. It was very clear, putting it simply, that those that were supportive of Hensonart ran three to one against those who did not. This of course is the ratio on OLO. And I am referring to OLO only.

I believe it was this very volume that seemed to breed a 'safety in numbers' ethic. Posts in support of Henson became increasingly strident in their criticism of those who opposed him. (Run through ALL the posts for yourselves. We started off on a for/against discussion. Then it got really personal. The majority DID rule).

I note that a suggestion of 'ganging' was made. Another poster said 'no ganging' . Really? How about 'pack hunting' , is that more acceptable?
_______________________________

You will take this thread as you wish. Is it 'sour grapes/sore loser/parting shot' stuff? I leave that judgment to each individual. But I can assure you that at this moment in time I do not have same to spend on writing this. I always feel that starting a thread takes a little more thought than making a response, BUT, as I've said, this has been buzzing around in my head;-because it reminds me of something.
________________________________

Hanson's supporters were vilified. Those who attended her meetings were subjected to some of the worst behaviour that I have ever witnessed from those who purported to be non-racist/anti-bigotry etc., You're all round nice reasonable people.

Part Two follows.

hi to all the forgotten australians

good post to have a nible at ginx

you are right in saying hanson,she stuck it to the goverment ,though i think their is a bit of diffrence with hanson and henson

one was wanting to change laws the other using it as a legal loop hoe with the arts pollicies

so what more can ya say than other that you are for it or against it

well my stand is that its wrong of the photo's and as i said in other post

would any of you on the forum allow your child to be portrayed in a gallery

only one comment said yes ,

so in other words their are more on the site here that really have to disagree with the photo's or else you all would of said yes to the question i stated above

regards huffnpuff

huffnpuff,

In answer to your questions about allowing a 12 year old to pose nude for a picture to be displayed in public my view is as follows.

Firstly, I do not have any children, so I can't use them as an example. I have previously mentioned that I am a nudist, and I do have nudist friends who have had daughters at this age. Their attitude to this would be the same as mine if I did have a daughter.

Generally nudist children are comfortable with their bodies and don't have the shame that society has placed on other children by teaching them that there bodies should always be covered. For a nudist parent to allow their children to be photographed it would depend on who was in fact photographing them and for what reason. Most wouldn't allow just any one to photograph them, but I know some who have been happy to do so if the child agrees. As for publishing and displaying such photo, that is often left until the child has become an adult and is willing to give their approval to such a display. I think that is the case in the Bill Henson photos. What sort of parents are these, you ask? Very normal loving parents who are raising well adjusted children in society.

For a nudist child to come home from school, remove their clothing and then settle down to watch TV, is as natural to them as it would be for a non nudist child to take off their shoes.

Incidentally, as far as paedophiles are concerned, I don't think clothing provides any protection from this sort of thing. In most child sex attacks, the victim was clothed at the time.

PART TWO.

You know where I'm going, don't you? Actually, I've arrived.

We have got through many threads on Islam/Religion and posted some pretty heavy stuff. But that stuff from the Forum Regs was "whack a mozzie/space-ship" type of stuff.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why I find this so compelling is that in both cases it was those who consider themselves to be reasonably balanced, tolerant people who were behaving (Hanson), posting (Henson) in the most derogatory and nasty way.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I remind you of two things:

If derogatory comments were made by those who opposed Hensonart...(I believe I said 'elitist and liberated'):-
1) WE were the 'bad guys' . You can't expect much better from folk like us.....
2) You are the 'good guys'. The tolerant, the broad-minded (as opposed to the narrow minded),- and you were clearly in the majority. (Notably, more than one from the arts fraternity became members of OLO for these particular threads. I look forward to seeing them post elsewhere..)

What motivates such good people to band together and turn on the minority as you did. AND YOU DID.

OF COURSE many became reluctant to post on the latest thread. They were not embarrassed at all!! They had had enough of the Onslaught of the Tolerant. I know I have.
_________________________

There are two posters in particular that I greatly admire. Paully; you can handle yourself, I should know that!!
SO can the ladies. (I KNOW you don't need smelling salts for sticking to your principles). I do know that also.

But I admire TammyJo and Bronwyn in particular.
This is NOT obsequiousness. We have fallen out, and in I hope. So it is a plain, simple statement of fact.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. We are ENTITLED to our own view.

AND...; this thread is about what I see as a 'syndrome'. It is NOT about ME being offended..because I'm all weak n' helpless like.
I can kick up pretty well. That would be totally hypocritical.

It is as I see it. You may/will differ. That is your right.

Ginx, as I mentioned in another post there have been nasties on both sides of this debate. The term paedophile enabler has been floated by my recollection more than once.

I get your point about those claiming to be tolerant dishing it out and it's a fair point. I had similar thoughts about opponents of Hanson at the time. Those who claim the high moral ground in some manner should behave better than others if they want to be taken seriously.

I've not taken the time to revisit all these threads nor to count numbers so I'll take your word for the counts. As someone who has supported Henson (with some reservations) I'd not thought that the numbers were so lopsided.

My impression is that the claims of ganging up was in relation to an attack steel made on huffnpuff where other posters critised steels comments. I think those who did so were ones who in this debate were more likely to agree with steels position than huffnpuff's. If thats the incident you are refering to it actaully speaks well of those in "the gang", they were willing to break ranks to speak out against what they considered unfair treatment of someone with an opposing point of view.

Cheers
R0bert

mYYYYYY goodness....

This is the first time I've REALLY wanted to give GINXY a hug :)

I love this stuff. (spontaneous right hooks and nut crunching kicks from Ginx aside :)

My observation is that people are beginning to actually care.. yes..care.. and Ginx's post was a total surprise after her "If you were here I'd hang one on you" kind of thing to another poster...

GINXY.. I'm sure u've been 'annoyed' by lots I say (no apology) but if u've been hurt.. I am sorry... I've not intended to actually hurt you or your feelings.. a bit of mocking is meant in jest.. please understand that.

Annnnyway.. good thread... and well researched.

I never thought I'd hear what Ginx said about the obcene abuse Hanson was subjected to from a socialist. "7 fold amen"