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.