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"

This should become an interesting and active thread as you've touched on two hot button issues here, Ginx. I'm not sure about their linking, though I hear what you're saying. The similarity of their surnames in itself makes it quite a good linkage though!

I was part of the minority view on Henson but I was in there boots and all on Hanson. I wrote the first letter to the editor in our local paper (large coastal area, high circulation), when she was first disendorsed as a candidate for Oxley by the Liberal Party, and I was accosted with hate mail and hate phone calls in a way I've never encountered before or since. I'm not sure the group condemning Hanson was always in the majority. I certainly felt in a minority at that particular time.

The reason I condemned Hanson and still do is the way she let the racist genie out of the bottle. Howard cleverly played her to his advantage and made huge political mileage out of her hate-filled rantings. He stood back and let her go, when a leader of principle would have cut her down before her divisive message gained momentum as it did. He noted the public mood and then without acknowledgement enacted several of her 'policy' positions. He moved the country to the Right and gained politically from her presence without having to dirty his own hands in the process.

(To be continued)

(Continued)

I'm sorry Ginx, I think I've probably strayed into another area of disagreement with you, but hopefully our 'mutual admiration' is strong enough to weather it! Actually, I don't know how many other posters there will be who are critical of both Hanson and Henson. Not too many is my guess.

That's one of the things I enjoy about OLO - the shifting alliances. There are many posters who I share a lot of agreement with, but there is only one other regular poster that I'm aware of with whom I have agreed on every issue. I won't name her but I'm sure she'll know whom I'm referring to!

By the way, Ginx, I hope you're not leaving OLO. First Vanilla and now you - two strong female voices announcing their departure in as many days. It’s too much!

I think there's a degree of commonality in the reaction to both events.

Both are the result of the same sort of moral outrage that we are constantly subjected to - usually manufactured and perpetuated in parts of the media.

If either of them were left alone for a couple of days they probably would have sunk without trace.

Both were bandwagons that everyone could jump on and use to publically nail their colours to the mast (ouch, very bad metaphor, I'm sorry).

If you had a grudge or a fear (either way) about migration , race or religion or a suspicion of progressive moral decay in society then here were a couple of handy places to make a stand.

I agree that it's interesting to see how we divide ourselves in such circumstances.

One group usually seems angrier about the subject than the other and are more prone to name-calling and respond more to emotion rather than fact. The other attempts to take some sort of higher moral stance and comes across as "soft", arrogant or out-of-touch. Yet another see everything as a way to push the same single agenda - like a conclusion looking for ways to justify itself. Some move between groups and others stay fixed - probably just on principle.

Maybe it's the DEGREE of response to certain topics that says a lot more about what motivates us than the reponses themselves.

This should be a Hetty/Hanson comparison. Both used fearmongering and extremely emotional arguments to lift their cause, rather than objective fact, logic and reason.

The same contradictions that inherent in Hanson's arguments were evident in the anti-Henson people who were all over the place about why it was 'wrong'. This was made humorous by the official announcements of prosecution after the debate and the actions of other artists who received no criticism. The clamouring for censorship however was amazing to behold. It's as if people are TERRIFIED of something...which is exactly the basis of Hanson's emotional platform.

Ginx,

I think your post is quite interesting.

A whole bunch of themes come to mind; Critical mass of opinion, the political environment (and OLO definately has one of it's own) shaping people's opinions (and more so how willing they are to express them), the winners writing history, and the ease of whipping up a lynch mob (The mainstream media does this every day with it's eyes closed).

It applies to AGW, feminism, political correctness and any topic really.

This is why I read both left and right wing books and newspapers, and I remember SMH readers kept being shocked every time the Howard government kept winning elections.

I think with the Henson stuff, and the general fear of paedophiles these days, the pro group were probably relieved to be in a forum where they could honestly express their view without real fear of being labelled a paedo. I read a few females talk about the beauty of the pictures, and I think one said they would treasure a picture like that of their own child, although I don't think a man could have got away with that comment.

Ironically, as you pointed out, they used this environment to do exactly the same to the anti-henson group. As you say, safety in numbers.

That's why I found the Blind Eye mockumentary about paedophillia so
so funny.

Robert,

' they were willing to break ranks to speak out against what they considered unfair treatment of someone with an opposing point of view.
'
I don't agree there. I think it's not the positions people hold on topics OLO that binds them together. There is a certain group within OLO (with quite a high opinion of themselves) that will always ignore personal attacks against others by those inside the group, while vigorously policing anyone outside the group who dares to do the same.

Dear Ginx,

Thanks for this thread.

It should bring out some interesting responses.

I was very much against Pauline Hanson because of her anti-Aboriginal, anti- immigration platform, but I do admit that in the end I began to feel a little sorry for the personal attacks that were hurled at her. Mind you every time she opened her mouth - she lost me.

As for Henson, as I've said on my previous posts, I don't question the talent of the photographer, but it still makes me uneasy to consider photographs of naked 12-13 year old children, as art. I don't normally have a problem with nudity - but considering the age in which we live, and the subjects being children, yes, it goes against my grain.

The thing that I like about this Forum - is that we get such a wide
variety of comments. The thing that I don't like,( as you point out )is that sometimes these comments overstep the boundaries of polite
discussion, and get down to personal attacks and 'labelling.'

In actual fact, none of us really know each other - and we shouldn't
stoop to this emotive practice. And, I include myself in this as well, because I admit, I've lost it a few times in the past.

Perhaps, if we realized just how much we can actually hurt someone's feelings - we might think twice before replying in anger.
We've got some really good role models on this Forum that we can emulate. Robert, comes to mind. Just to name one.

There are many others.

We could at least try to keep it fair.

Hanson and Henson? Besides the obvious similarity in names, I agree that both Hanson supporters and Henson attackers have attracted the ire of many intelligent, educated and honourable Australians - deservedly so, I'd say.

As far as I can glean from Ginx's posts, she's peeved that her views about "Hensonart" - and her way of putting them - haven't been well received by some people with whom she usually agrees at OLO. I'm in the poo with her because I pointed out that it's not good enough in a debate to aggressively voice an opinion and then refuse to discuss it.

The position that Henson's portrayal of nude adolescent models is somehow intrinsically and self-evidently "wrong", "pornographic" or "perverted" is one that requires a strong supportive argument, particularly given that those who promote it wish to change our current standards - under which Henson's artworks have been shown to be none of those things, legally speaking. However, Ginx is one of those who has aggressively attacked Henson and those who support his art, but who hasn't deigned to provide a jot of supporting argument or evidence.

The comments about group dynamics at OLO are quite interesting. The Henson controversy has certainly shown how disparate and varied are the views of those who post here regularly. I have to say that I've been variously surprised, delighted and disappointed by their comments on this issue.

As my kids say (too often), it's all good :)

Dear Bronwyn.....while you are sinking the boots and all into Hanson....
and writing letters to the editor condemning her..

I wonder if you saw the show on Current Affair showing the Asian man in a bus full of Asian tourists, where he was telling them as follows:

"Make sure you goto THIS mall/shop.. as it's owned by Asians.. but don't goto 'that' one, which is owned by White people/Australians"

I saw it.. and I'm sure many 10s of 1000s of others did.

Now.. just out of curiosity.. did you? and if you did, did you write to the travel company involved or the media..and OUT this overt blatant racism which was what the heart of Hansons platform was against?

So.. if Hanson exposes blatant racism and 'ethnic networking' which is deliberately and maliciously and in a racist manner working against the interests of justice, fairness and free trade.. she is a 'racist'?

Now.. I don't particularly wave the flag for Hanson, but on this issue, she was completely justified in what she said..which was "TREAT ALL AUSTRALIAN EQUALLY" only a warped mind could interpret that as 'racist'.. and thats why some of us (not you notably) have spent about 170+ posts back and forth on the issue of INTERPRETING things.

To some twisted minds "Black"="White" and 'EQUALITY'= UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

So..that then results in me sinking the verbal boot in you, because I'm a believer in equality before the law irrespective of race.
Hate crimes are the same for me or for anyone else. If I say "Bash up all red headed people" its a hate crime. If red headed people say "Bash up all people named 'BOAZ'" its equally a hate crime.

Usual Suspect "There is a certain group within OLO (with quite a high opinion of themselves) that will always ignore personal attacks against others by those inside the group, while vigorously policing anyone outside the group who dares to do the same"

Thats not the impression I have of those involved. I will admit I'm more inclined to notice the excesses of those I disagree with than those I agree with, I suspect that I'm not alone in this. From my perspective I try and stay out of tiffs between those who appear fond of an online tiff but do sometimes step in if I think someone is being unfairly attacked. Thats always a judegment call based on time, posting limits, emotional energy and impressions of those involved and the reaction the attack triggers in me.

I've made the point to steel that I think huffnpuff is the wrong target, there are some people on these forums with ideas that do bring their grip on reality into question. Some who spare no chance to express their contempt for those who don't agree with them. huffnpuff had a really bad start to life and stuggles with his written expression, I happen to disagree with him on this issue but don't think any of that justifies the attack steel made on him.

I think though that the point I made still stands, some of those supporting artistic freedom stepped in when they considered an attack on someone with a differing view to be uncalled for.

In my view the debate has not been as one sided, not the behaviour of those on the side loosely described as supporting Henson as bad as it has seemed to Ginx.

R0bert

I too did not like some of the vitriol on the Henson threads. Reading through the posts again, it appears we are all paedophiles regardless of what side of the debate you stand.

The Henson debate certainly did bring out some fire and passion on both sides. I found I was in opposition to people who I might agree with on other issues. Religion, pornography and gender issues appear to bring out the worst (and occasionally the best) of people.

Human nature is a funny animal. There probably was a pack mentality to some extent on the Henson threads. In general, people tend to behave like that when perceptions of one's 'moral stature' is put into question. Perhaps it is a survival mechanism we have not quite grown out of.

I was guilty too and found after a while I avoided the Henson threads because I was getting angry that anyone could believe that these images were anything other than sexualising children.

Where you find humans you will find the 'usual' human emotions and failings.

Ginx and Vanilla don't stay away for too long. I appreciate your directness and well reasoned debating skills. :)

I can clearly recall the first time another commenter savagely attacked something I'd said. It went something like:

You mustn't be able to see clearly through all that smoke.

Horrendous isn't it? I was so stung I stayed away for ages. Stung at the ad hominem attack and, stupidly, that 'chainsmoker' was taken to refer to fags rather than fish. What else were people supposed to think? In retrospect my response was ridiculous, but at the time I felt awful.

Several years later I take the blood letting for granted and can mostly pick which topics will cause a ruckus. The July feature on religion should produce some doozys.

It's the nature of what we politely call public debate. 'Robust debate' is code for carnage. 'Mainstream majority' often means lynch mob. 'Evidence' can mean pretty much anything.

It's nasty sometimes, yes, but would we rather be gagged as we were in the internet-free past? Would we rather be stuck yelling at the telly with nobody to hear and respond? That's the choice as I see it - either jump in and wrestle with your fellow hoi polloi and cop a hiding sometimes or switch off somewhere comfy, quiet, safe and detached.

pelican, I'd like to take a light hearted look following reflection on a point you made which has been a common theme of the discussions. I'm not having a go at you with this, it's intended to help us step back a bit and maybe have a laugh at ourselves (on both sides).

You made the point "I was getting angry that anyone could believe that these images were anything other than sexualising children."

That aspect of the debate from both sides reminds me of the old story of the man being shown inkblots by the psychiatrist. For each inkblot shown the man claimed he saw an image of something sexual. After a while the psychiatrist comments that the man is obsessed with sex to which the man replies "You are the one with all the dirty pictures".

Each of our worldviews, life experiences and a whole buch of other things will impact on how we see this and other issues. I've been in a similar boat to you on other issues where I've been very frustrated that others can't see something that seems so obvious to me. It's a hard place to be.

R0bert

"I wonder if you saw the show on Current Affair showing the Asian man in a bus full of Asian tourists.."

No I didn't BD but if I did I'm sure I'd exercise a little more scepticism than you obviously have. There's usually a lot more to the story than the selective little grab that A Current Affair puts to air.

"Now.. I don't particularly wave the flag for Hanson, but on this issue, she was completely justified in what she said..which was "TREAT ALL AUSTRALIAN EQUALLY" only a warped mind could interpret that as 'racist'.. and thats why some of us (not you notably) have spent about 170+ posts back and forth on the issue of INTERPRETING things."

I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens. That actually involves treating them differently, not equally. People who are disadvantaged need assistance that others born into better circumstances do not. When you treat all people equally you actually end up with an unjust society.

Hanson's call to treat 'all Australians equally' stemmed from a bitter resentment at what she perceived to be unfair favourable discrimination towards Aborigines. That positive discrimination was in fact a belated effort on the part of the government at the time to try and rectify the loss and suffering Aborigines experienced at the hands of white settlers and the hardship they had faced as a result ever since. Treating all Australians equally just means that disadvantaged groups such as the Aborigines fall further behind. A lot of people, like myself, understand this very clearly and no it doesn't mean we have a 'warped mind'.

By the way, what do you mean by "not you notably"?

RObert
The trouble is an inkblot is just an inkblot but a photograph of naked children displaying genitalia or in sexual poses does not pretend to be anything else. It is what it is - there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation like in the inkblot.

I don't really want to get back into the Henson debate as such, I was really trying to demonstrate my own reaction in the context of Ginx's comments.

pelican, I'm not wishing to revisit the original topic here either but rather discuss the way the debate played out. Our reactions to the flow. I get the impression that some of theis is very painful for you, I'm not wanting to add to that so if you don't want to further discussion please feel free to ignore this.

You made the point in your last post "there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation" - the fact that we have had this debate with some good people on both sides of the debate suggests to me that there is clearly ambiguity or room for interpretation regarding the photo's in question.

That there are people who's views we generally respect on the other side of the debate should give many of us cause to rethink. Having yourself, Foxy, Ginx, Bronwyn and others on the other side of this debate has certainly given me reason to re-evaluate my views on an ongoing basis.

Bronwyn, I don't think is possible or desirable to create equal outcomes. We eash have differing abilities and make different choices. To achieve equal outcomes we would have to remove all choice. At best we can try to create equal opportunity.

In regard to Hanson the issues she raised were not her creation, they were simmering away in the backgroud. I'd rather they had been brought to the fore and debated openly and exposed rather than suppressed. Many still continue to simmer away.

R0bert

Thank-you, thank-you, THANK-YOU all so very much. I would have felt such a wally if none of you had responded!

There is so much good opinion here to respond to; and I will before I head out next Wed (will be o/s). Work AND the desire for a break from the forum have coincided. GOOD!

OLO is such damn good fodder for the brain; and paradoxically I find that brainpower overwhelming at times.

I'm just passing through my own domain at this moment,-heading out again. Will be back before I go (...er?!!).

It is simple courtesy to answer posts and I will anon.

Thanks.

Bronwyn,

You say >>”I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens.”

In what sense do you mean this? Do you actually mean that everyone should have an equal opportunity, or do you mean that we as a society should “make it up to” people who don’t use their equal opportunities sensibly or usefully so we all have the same outcomes?.

Do you, for instance, believe that we should all be paid the same no matter how hard we work?

I think our culture of a fair go demands that everyone gets an equal opportunity. To my mind that means that all children deserve a good education, to prepare them to take advantage of their opportunities, good health care and a safe and loving environment in which to grow. As adults I belive we should ensure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing and healthcare.

Beyond that however it is up to the individual to make their way in life, and it is not the responsibility of the community to ensure that everyone has the same outcomes. Those who study well, make good decisions, work hard and save money should be rewarded for their good sense. Those who are idle, use drugs or break the law, are not entitled to the same outcomes as those who do not.

All that being said, I am not averse to the positive discrimination in favour of groups which are significantly underperforming, IF that discrimination is well targeted and effective. For a long time, funding for Aboriginal communities was not well targeted, nor effective.

tbc

cont,

You say >>”That positive discrimination was in fact a belated effort on the part of the government at the time to try and rectify the loss and suffering Aborigines experienced at the hands of white settlers and the hardship they had faced as a result ever since”

Quite so, But you would do well to note that we have done more harm in our attempts to help than good. It was interesting to recently see footage of Aborigines involved in the strike for equal wages and recognition in the census. All the people were healthy, they were clearly not inebriated, they spoke English well and they looked dignified.

Whilst their cause was undoubtedly just, the result was anything but. The termination of employment of Aboriginal stockmen was the beginning of a road of great hardship and much adversity for many communities. The welfare solution, coupled with a poorly executed self determination policy has dragged low many an aboriginal community.

We have moved too far from the application of personal responsibility, and encouraged for too long the black armband view of history. The results have been an abdication of personal responsibility by many in these remote communities, well versed in their special status as society’s victims. This can only be corrected by holding people responsible for their own actions and making them accountable for the bad decisions they make. In excusing bad behaviour by referring to injustices decades old we do no-one any favours, least of all the miscreant.

Those who make the right decisions/choices should be rewarded, those who don’t should not. That’s the only fair way that you can promote the importance of making good life choices.

Ginx- I do agree with you to some degree that there was a bully brigade that formed during the Henson debate.

The views of the for and against camps were so polarized that there was absolutely no middle ground on which they could agree on. It was very difficult to reason with some Henson supporters but that is really just a poor reflection on them personally, more than anything else.

During the debate an acquaintance- aged 40- passed away leaving 3 young children behind. That stopped me in my tracks and I ended up just letting my strong feelings on the Henson debate go. It suddenly all seemed quite insignificant in the whole scheme of life.

Anyway Ginx- have a great trip to wherever you are going.

Dear Ginx,

Ditto, from me as well...

Have a great trip... You shall be missed - we need decisive strong voices such as yours on this Forum.

In the meantime - have fun!

RObert

“Bronwyn, I don't think it's possible or desirable to create equal outcomes.”

When I spoke of striving to create ‘equal outcomes’, I wasn’t alluding to communism or any totalitarian system. I was referring to the ideal of an egalitarian society and one without obvious disparities in the wealth of its citizens. It's a very different society to one whose aim is solely to provide equal opportunity.

Providing equal opportunity in itself does not create equal outcomes. Disadvantaged people need extra assistance to avail themselves of the opportunities provided equally to all, otherwise they are not in a position to benefit and will not do so, while others more advantaged will, and the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged will just grow wider.

“To achieve equal outcomes we would have to remove all choice.”

It doesn’t require removal of choice at all. It involves enhancing the choices for disadvantaged groups who, unless given that assistance, invariably have very limited choices compared to the more advantaged in society.

This is what angered Pauline Hanson and her supporters. They saw positive discrimination or affirmative action as favouritism and felt it was benefiting the recipients at their expense. Of course it wasn’t, but it’s an understandable reaction from people who are themselves experiencing an increasing degree of economic hardship for whatever reason.

Paul

“I think our culture of a fair go demands that everyone gets an equal opportunity. To my mind that means that all children deserve a good education, to prepare them to take advantage of their opportunities..”

I agree, all children deserve a good education. Simply providing equal opportunity though is not enough in my view. In a typical class of students there will always be a small group who do not manage to achieve at grade level. Teachers have two choices. They can deliver the same lessons to all and give the same amount of time to each student, or in other words provide equal opportunity. In which case by the end of the year the gap between the achievers and the under-achievers will have widened. Or, teachers can spend more time with the slower students than they do with the more able, with the aim of lifting those disadvantaged students closer to the grade average, or in other words aiming for equal outcomes. The latter choice to my mind is the best and fairest choice. It gives the disadvantaged a better chance than the the first option would have, and it also means in the long run a more harmonious and safer society.

“All the people were healthy, they were clearly not inebriated, they spoke English well and they looked dignified.”

Alcohol has had a detrimental effect on Aboriginal life and we have to accept some responsibility for that and do all we can to help Aboriginal communities ameliorate the harm it has caused. We introduced them to alcohol. We profited from its sale and for many years we turned a blind eye to the damage it was causing.

“The termination of employment of Aboriginal stockmen was the beginning of a road of great hardship and much adversity for many communities.”

The road of hardship for Aborigines began long before this. The termination of Aboriginal stockmen’s employment only occurred because station-owners were unwilling to pay the same wages paid to whites. You’re not suggesting an Aboriginal stockman should have been content to work for lesser wages, are you?

R0bert: << That aspect of the debate from both sides reminds me of the old story of the man being shown inkblots by the psychiatrist. For each inkblot shown the man claimed he saw an image of something sexual. After a while the psychiatrist comments that the man is obsessed with sex to which the man replies "You are the one with all the dirty pictures". >>

Yes, that's a very apposite old joke that I've seen repeated more than once recently in relation to the Henson debate.

pelican: << The trouble is an inkblot is just an inkblot but a photograph of naked children displaying genitalia or in sexual poses does not pretend to be anything else. It is what it is - there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation like in the inkblot. >>

With respect, you miss the point entirely. Clearly there's both ambiguity and room for interpretation in Henson's images, else there wouldn't be any debate about them. For example, asserting that his models' poses are "sexual" is exactly the kind of interpretation to which the inkblot joke alludes.

Dear Bronwyn
my 'notably not you' referred to your not having a nibble at me in the 'How to interpret texts' thread. I don't recall seeing any contribution from you.

Regarding what I suppose might be called affirmative action, greater economic assistance to those left behind.

Economic assistance, education etc will not in my view solve the core problem of indigenous squalor or disadvantage. People need dignity and hope to even have a desire to advance themselves.

Let me show you a group who were in utter squalor, about which the book 'Drunk Before Dawn' was written. My wife is from this group.

According to the Sarawak governmment at the time (mid 20s) they were 'beyond hope and should be left to die out'.. They were even used as 'head hunting fodder' by the Sarawak government who allowed Dayaks to attack them and vent their rather warlike spleens because "after all..they are beyond hope"

Spiritual renewal is the real answer to indigenous (or any) squalor and disadvantage. That does not just change the circumstance, it also changes the person.

If I may, please imagine the worst examples of Indigenous living.

http://www.fixcas.com/news/2007/spry2.jpg
http://zaffran.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/isr.jpg
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/11/12DARWIN_wideweb__470x287,0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fighting-to-shed-despair/2006/01/11/1136956241016.html&h=287&w=470&sz=31&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=lNVWDceIdttyiM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daboriginal%2Bsqualor%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
http://www.thewest.com.au/getfile.aspx?Type=image&ID=112206&ObjectType=3&ObjectID=85104
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200710/r195662_743800.jpg
http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/a/1/3/im/a13668.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3281219.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=4F84C7EF07395AB6FC27C8FA967462DBA55A1E4F32AD3138

Then..contrast that with this below.. a people who 'were' just like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPSCWFjg1y0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYqMG2HApj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTgIeY1mpQ&amp;feature=related
(You'll see some conical red banded hats on that one, I have one at my place.)

This (below) is where I've walked.. am related to many of the people there, Ba'Kalalan..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hctOO9surtA&amp;feature=related

Notice all the squalor and sadness :) and the dilapidated humpies...the starving neglected children. Yep.. 'transformation' through the Gospel of Christ is an awful thing...for sure.

Renewed people don't need handouts, or 'special' assistance.. all they need is space, love and respect.

Bronywn and Paul are you interested in taking up the outcome/opportunity discussion on a new thread? I think it's a very interesting area but it's clearly off topic here.

R0bert

RObert

"Bronywn and Paul are you interested in taking up the outcome/opportunity discussion on a new thread? I think it's a very interesting area but it's clearly off topic here."

I actually think it goes to the heart of the Hanson debate so I don't see it as 'off topic' at all, but I appreciate the thought and I'm sure I'd join in if the discussion was continued elsewhere.

1/

CJ Morgan; if I don't respond to you, I give tacit confirmation for what you said. I will try to behave on my own thread, so I will tell you in the best way I can that I ask you to accept my word of honour that I did not start this thread because of our disagreement.
I ask you to believe that, and;-if you do, then you will realize that you have gone some way to proving my point. Don't you think it a little superior and arrogant to believe that I started a thread just to have a go at you?
It is THAT kind of attitude that seemed to drive the Hensonart issue.
One more thing. You might well have put up a plausible explanation for posting in the third person, but frankly, referring to me in the third person on a thread that I instigated is just not polite. It isn't.
(It has all had little to do with the Right or the Religious has it? It has been solely that you had to be right. Just that. Nothing else. )(Add: now inkblots!!)

BOZO; some of your comments re causing me any offence were rather kind, and I appreciate them, I really do...BUT, please don't take what I said as an endorsement of your philosophical/political views.
When you can prove beyond all doubt that it was totally 'socialists ' who were yelling obscenities at the Hanson followers;-I will listen.
I do not want to concentrate on either person, but I will say that during that period what I saw was a concerted,calculated attack by ALL sides of politics on a person that they saw as a real threat to their positions in the political landscape.

2/

I could not support Hanson, but I refused to attack her;-I just watched what happened. It proved only one thing to me and that is that the political status quo MUST be maintained at all costs. That cost is to every man/woman/child in this country.
It was that that burned me about the issue. Where was the democracy? AND.................where was the "Freedom of Speech" held so dear by so many........... (I'll get back to that one!)

R0bert;- Thanks for being the first respondent. You are right in what you say, regarding some very cutting responses. I will invoke two things here. Firstly, such remarks ('pedophile enabler') did not and would not come from myself,Bronwyn, Foxy, TammyJo. Yet these three posters were subjected to a pretty strong ridiculing because they chose to express their opinions;-and not alter those opinions. B/F/TJ expressed concerns; reservations;..and they were damn well vilified for it!
Secondly, the ratio of supporters v non-supporters ran at 3 to 1. It makes those condescending criticisms all the more bullying. Because that IS what it was.
Excepting you. That is a fact. Thank-you.
_____________________

Well now:........lets get to the Freedom of Speech issue. I'm surprised that I did not see what was so obvious when I started this thread!
Bronwyn, Foxy:- the issue you took with Hanson is entirely consistent with the issue you took with Henson!

Bronwyn, there IS no disagreement with me. As you indicated; how many people who argued so strongly for the freedom of speech/expression with regard to Henson............, were dead set AGAINST Hanson's right to freedom of speech/expression??

This FoS thing is a lot of bollocks! For me to say I do not believe in it, is to say that I believe in a locked down Police State. Yeah right!

3/

SO;.....it is the very restrictions on so-called FoS that underpin what is essentially the 'civilizing' of the human animal. We cannot do whatever we want. If we could, then we could murder etc., with impunity. Dammit all! We do not have FoS on OLO! By necessity we have to restrict volume/length of posts!

Why attack the negative?? views of Hensonart? We have the right to FoS.
Why attack the negative?? views of Hanson? We have the right to FoS.

Don't we?
____________________________________________

Thanks TJ, Foxy.

I'm away the noo'.

Bronywn if I understand it correctly Ginx is trying to talk about how the debates were conducted rather than the detail of the debate. There is a line in there somewhere which I don't always do well with but it seems to me that topic would be better served in it's own space. I'll try and draft up an opening post sometime in the near future unless you'd prefer to do the honors.

Cheers
R0bert

Hi RObert
Sorry for the delay in responding. I did not find any of the Henson debate painful - no worries there I was just aware of not getting into the actual debate side of things rather than stick with Ginx's original message.

I think it is pretty clear there are some strong views on both sides and in the end, like most things, usually we can just agree to disagree.

Otherwise I will just get myself into deep water again discussing inkblots and how this relates to Henson...or not. :)

Dear Ginx (hope you catch up with this one in due course)

That was a most positive post, though I have to exercise a bit of 'will power' on the 'bozo' tag :)

You have (pleasantly) surprised me with 2 things.

1/ Staunch defense of free speech (Of Hanson and Henson) and hopefully me also.

2/ The observations you made about this, and how you demonstrated the selective nature of those attacking Hanson but not Henson

SOCIALISM.. a brief aside. I am in fact a 'socialist' in the Biblical sense. But I'm also a realist. The primary difference between us it seems is that you want to change the political 'structure' and I want to change the people in it. I don't believe that any structure or system will work unless it has people who are sympathetic to its objectives.
If you take the trouble to compare to chunks of scripture, you will see how this is illustrated.
Acts 2:42-47 "PURE socialism"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=31
Acts 6:1 "Socialism falling apart"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&version=31

When you see the reasons it started show cracks, (ethnic/multicultural) you will also know why I'm ultra cynical about the questionable benefits of EMphasizing difference rather than letting people merge and blend naturally.

FREE SPEECH and PERSECUTION OF RELIGION.
While separation of Church and State is probably a good thing, one wonders how far it should be 'forced' in the face of a small community's wishes.
When long standing important existing traditions are in place, it seems to me that 'wiping them out' in the name of separation is equivalent to trampling on land rights for people who have not lost their connection with the land.

ACLU vs KEYSTONE SCHOOL BOARD.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44481
The actual complaint.
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/aclu%20pa%20tro-pi%20motion-final.pdf

REASONABLENESS It also seems reasonable to me, that if a school board desires to open it's meeting with prayer for guidance, unless there is a serious objection, why should they be prevented?
Even if the ACLU succeeds in preventing them, they can meet OUTside of the official room (in a home) and PRAY to their hearts content.. so what is gained by such prohibitive directives?

BOAZ you may well ask those questions of the religious who are pressing (and often succeeding) for repressive laws on other people and of society in general, such as gay people getting married. Religious extremists must learn to mind their own business and defend themselves from the state, ......INSTEAD...... of forcing their views upon others through lawmaking. But as we can see with Islam, this is never the intention is it? Islam in Australia is in the business of protecting itself. Once it feels safe, it will join you in altering society to their (and perhaps your) benefit. The problem of course is those extremists have an awful lot of power don't they?

Hanson supporters should read "The Nazi Seizure of Power" by William Sheridan Allen, set mainly in 1932/3 period. It is a true account of how the National Socialist worked fear into regional towns, to build a base.

The NAZI M.O. was to create fear among the Middle Class rural communities. Persons with deposits in the Bank became convinced that the Jews and Communists would take away their money, and they would become poor like the itinerant workers, they looked down on.

Farmers and rural merchants were their propagander targets.

The similarities the last days of the regional Weimar Republic (1919–33), and, between Hanson and rural Australia are strong. Fortunately, in Oz, we didn't elect a second Hitler.

RObert

I would much prefer to leave the beginning of a thread in your capable hands! But as I said before I would certainly join in.

Ginx

Thanks for starting an interesting thread and for your careful reading and analysis of our responses.

"Well now:........lets get to the Freedom of Speech issue. I'm surprised that I did not see what was so obvious when I started this thread!
Bronwyn, Foxy:- the issue you took with Hanson is entirely consistent with the issue you took with Henson!"

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both Hanson and Henson deserved condemnation in that they both abused the right to freedom of speech or expression. If this is what you’re saying, I totally agree. I’m not sure it is though, as it seems somewhat at odds with earlier statements you made about Hanson being vilified. Your position on Hanson wasn’t entirely clear to me. Anyway, I think you may have already gone so I won’t say any more, other than to complement you on an inspired little linkage here!

Enjoy the noo'!

BD

"Notice all the squalor and sadness :) and the dilapidated humpies...the starving neglected children. Yep.. 'transformation' through the Gospel of Christ is an awful thing...for sure.
Renewed people don't need handouts, or 'special' assistance.. all they need is space, love and respect."

You're right, BD. It really is so simple. Silly me! I'll ring Jenny Macklin and tell her to fly in a planeload of bibles. She'll wonder why they hadn't thought of it before. To think they've been wasting all this time and money on trying to improve education, housing and health!

Oliver,

>>” The similarities the last days of the regional Weimar Republic (1919–33), and, between Hanson and rural Australia are strong.”

That’s a VERY, VERY long bow to draw. Germany was suffering violent instability. There were the communists and anarchists launching armed coups to overthrow the Gov’t. There were organisations of ex-soldiers (Freikorps) bitterly opposed to communism who also had designs upon gov’t. Street fighting, coups and counter-coups between these groups occurred on a regular basis. Democracy was put on hold entirely.

Besides this bloody bickering over who would rule the country, Ordinary Germans were suffering from massive hyper-inflation. By the end, 1 trillion Papiermark was replaced by 1 Rentenmark. There were limited goods to buy even if you were lucky enough to have the money.

Much of this upheaval can be linked to the massive reparations requirements which the French insisted upon at Versaillles. This burden, without doubt, contributed to the rise of Nazism and hence the Second World War.

There were NO REAL similarities whatsoever. Not in scale, nor in style. Hanson was a babe in the woods voicing the frustrations of “the battlers”, or what Rudd now refers to as “working families” with a system that seemed to be set up for somebody else. Gov’t had moved too far away for ordinary peoples and towards the PC elites. There was an inevitable backlash. Political parties made a renewed effort to get in touch with the thoughts/feelings/aspirations of their support base.

Paul L.,

"Much of this upheaval can be linked to the massive reparations requirements which the French insisted upon at Versaillles. This burden, without doubt, contributed to the rise of Nazism and hence the Second World War." - PL

Certainly, the histographies you paint are true. I have read Harvard Business Review from the period. Reparations were hurting Germany.

Yet, this is a macro history, of which, most Western educated people would be aware. In a complementary manner, what was interesting about Allen's micro bottom-up review; is the study demostrates how the NAZIs worked on localised fears and prejudices, as did Hanson.

Despite, the Great Depression,in Germany, there was a middle class with savings, whom were not wandering around in a Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, fashion. Herein, much of said middle class were in rural communities tethered to the Farmer of Framers themselves. These people were elitest, scared and gullible.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133b/07Projects/Allen65AAlire073.htm

[I recognize the critiqie by the URL author., Andrew Alire. Yet, at the same time, see the general process working in a rural community.]

Thalburg is merely illustrative of the bigger picture. There were a many Thalburgs in Weimar Germany.

The actual book is an interesting read and more comprehensively addresses the sociologies I address within this thread.

My wife's family are coutry-folk, and, here; I see many similarities between the psyche of the contemporary Aussie farmer and community and the German town of Thalburg c. 1930s. When Hanson visited regional centres in NSW's Northern Table Lands, warning of the Asian invasion, more than half the adult population would attend. She would take her audience back to the 1950s as did the NAZIs its audiences back before WWI. Return-of or re-establishment, homogeneity, danger and avoidance were the cries of the Party.

Cheers.

- PaulL?

PaulL? Ginx?