I watched "Q and A," last night and learned
for the first time about something called the
"Safe Schools," program.

Apparently approx. 500 schools have already
opted to include this program into their
curriculum. With 15,000 teachers choosing to
utilise their training and tools to support
same-sex attracted, inter sex and gender driven
students, their families and peers.

The general consensus
seems to be that all students,
staff and families deserve to feel safe, included,
and valued at school.

The feeling is that this
program ensures the well being of all school
students and gives them equal access to education.
The hope is that through education - there will
be more tolerance amongst students. The stats of
suicide will decrease - and bullying will also
decrease.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au

The small part of Q&A I watched again highlighted how bigotted and rude Tony Jones, the abc and the homosexual lobby are. The constant interuptions to Mr Shelton while allowing the regressives free reign to sprout their bigotry was the order of the day. Why should we be surprised when the national broadcaster has been hijacked by social engineers and bullies. The ignorant/gullible getup crowd aslo seemed well over represented.

Bullies do so because they are violent and feel the need to bully.

If they fail to find their easiest victims on the grounds of sexual orientation, then they will find their victims on other grounds or otherwise completely at random.

So while same-sex-attracted and inter-sex students may feel safer, this means that the probability for heterosexual students at those schools to be bullied, is increased, making them less safe.

The Safe School Program - is a learning environment that
is safe, respectful, caring, and supportive. Safe
Schools share their commitment to developing such learning
environments and explain the steps they are taking to
achieve them such as parent and teacher involvement.
Core values and beliefs are clearly communicated.
These include the importance of diversity and difference.

Safe Schools describe how these core values are taught to
students and the actions they are taking to ensure the
acceptance of diversity and difference across the school.

Their entire ethos is to generate respect, belonging,
and collaboration throughout schools.
Their aim is to correct ignorance and get rid of
bullying.

I suggest that you find out more about the program
and what it is about, before condemning it - not knowing
what it involves.

Hey runner can you tell us what bigotry is?
Because I dont think you know.

Foxy:
Does the safe schools program adhere to anti-discrimination principles or is it exempt from them because when you have special programs for only one type of bullying then you are discriminating against all those kids who are bullied for other reasons.

How can you tell when someone is being bullied because of their sexuality or because they are just not very nice people and indulge in aggression and bullying themselves?

What has suicide got to do with it? Just because the highest number of suicides happen to occur in kids with sexual issues does not mean that the cause of the suicide is bullying. It could well be the sexual issues that make them want to commit suicide.

Dear Phanto,

I provided a link in my opening post.
You can downlaod the information you're
after from it or alternatively contact
the Safe Schools Coalition. They will be
delighted to explain things to you.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

The following link may also help clarify
things for you:

http://www.safeschoolshub.edu.au/safe-schools-toolkit/overview

runner,

"....The constant interuptions to Mr Shelton while allowing the regressives free reign to sprout their bigotry was the order of the day...."

Sorry Mr Christian Guy...but the bigotry is all yours and yer mates.

Fancy religious types attempting to shut down a safety program in schools for their own bigoted ends.

The following link explains quite a bit:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/does-safe-schools-work-too-soon-to-tell-20160228-gn62dn.html

I know Poirot you define someone a bigot so your perverted views can't be aired. No wonder you are quick to defend the bigots and hide behind the 'concern'for the kids.

Foxy:

I am fully capable of using Google to find information. What I am asking is whether or not people think that the information is accurate or whether the arguments it presents are reasonable or whether the action it proposes is the best action to take.

Just pointing to the information itself does not tell me anything that I am eager to know. Most people will have opinions about that information and want to express them once they know what is being proposed and why but you seem devoid of opinions. You seem to just want to be a reporter and some kind of moderator but never really a participant in the discussions.

If you don’t want to express your opinions you do not have to but what is the point of being here otherwise? You ask what do people think but you do not tell us what you think. We do not need anyone to kick start discussions – there is enough that happen spontaneously.

runner,

What are my "perverted views"?

You are typical of your fundie ilk. You possess no substance. The extent of your argument is to hurl foul epithets at others.

That's it.....nothing else.

So you go around accusing fellow posters of hate and perversion, etc...because your mind has been neutered of any semblance of an independent enquiring entity.

Therefore, you're chained to your Intolerence and your prejudice....you drift along aimlessly casting aspersions on your fellow man.

Pathetic....

Ms Saint Poirot who loves to dishes it out and spits the dummy when she gets a little back. Anyone who supports this program supports perverted views.

I watched all of Q&A last night, and have read the links Foxy provided, and I can't see what all the fuss is about. It talks about including ALL children in an anti-bullying campaign, and not leaving the Gay/transgender kids out in the cold, like they have been previously in many schools, for many years.

It seems that some ignorant, nasty people don't care about the bullying of these kids because of their ancient homophobic views. How nasty is that? They don't mind gay or transgender kids being bullied because they don't believe they can truly exist!

That ignorant fool Mr. Shelton on Q&A last night was so full of hatred of anything that might go against his religious teachings, that he couldn't understand that all the points he brought up against gay marriage were already present in gay couple's lives already....like them bringing up children.

So trying to explain how a more gay-inclusive anti-bullying program for schools would help more children than the current obviously ineffective programs do, to this fellow Shelton, was like flogging a dead horse.

Telling gay or transgender kids they are an 'abomination' or a 'perversion' is both bigoted and bullying. Telling off people who say these nasty things to or about these kids is both brave and necessary.

Oh dear, you do realize that at some point we have to choose leaders from within the students coming through, or god help us, rely on them to defend our country from attack from others that don't even value ones life, let alone if they are queer.

God help us.

Au contraire, runner,

"Ms Saint Poirot who loves to dishes it out and spits the dummy when she gets a little back..."

I'm not spitting the dummy - I'm calling you out for your rather limited repertoire.

When all you've got is a grubby well-thumbed notebook full of noxious and offensive epithets, containing no insightful analysis or cogent critique...what do you have?

Not much at all really.....

We got the word from the horses mouth today when Australia's number one "christian" cleric the sanctimonious Cardinal George Pell had this to say about the actions of pedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale a "sad story" but "not of much interest" to him (George Pell) at the time. Pell couldn't have cared less.

So don't hold your breath waiting for Catholic Schools and other Christian low life schools to do anything for gay and transgender students, when the attitudes from those at the top, like Pell, is so bigoted and uncaring. Runner, Pell is your kinda guy!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/george-pells-gerald-ridsdale-testimony-beggars-belief-survivors/7209700

'When all you've got is a grubby well-thumbed notebook full of noxious and offensive epithets, containing no insightful analysis or cogent critique...what do you have?'

and all you have Poirot numerous words with no substance which try and disguise the support of a perverted agenda. you should try out for the abc. Pathetic!

I* agree Rehctub, the objective of many is to tilt a student towards
what they think may perhaps be their true sexual inclination.

Doesn't it make more sense to tilt them towards their DNA's definition ?

It seems that we are seeing a recruitment campaign for homosexuals
in disguise as an anti bullying campaign.
That seems to be the sub title of all this carryon.

When I was in primary & secondary school all this nonsense never came
up and bullying was minimal and was sorted out by the teachers.
Actually I can only remember one case of bullying and it was pretty
mild anyway and was short circuited by the teacher by pointing out
how clever his project was.

Dear Phanto,

I'm glad to hear that you know how to Google.
Therefore you should have been able to Google
the Safe Schools Program for yourself and
learned what the program was all about.

This program was developed in response to
requests from Australian teachers and principals
looking for advice and resources to better support
the diversity and well being of their students and
create safe learning environments.

As one politician commented - "Life is already difficult
enough for young people. They shouldn't have to put up
with the added stress of bullying and intimidation in
the school yard."

This is a program about doing that.
Of course I support it. I would have thought that this
should be crystal clear from this discussion and the
links I provided.

Foxy:
Ok, so you support the program as outlined on the web site. Maybe now you can answer the questions I originally asked but you did not answer and nor does the website.

Why do you support a program that discriminates against all the other kids who are bullied for other reasons? Do you support discrimination as a policy? Why should kids with sexual issues have a special program? Why is there no program, for example, for kids who are bullied for eating disorders?

How do we know that these kids are not being bullied for reasons other than their sexuality? How can you tell for sure? If you cannot tell for sure then why does this program presume that you can? Why do you support a program that is based on just a presumption that you can?

Why do you support a program that links suicide with bullying on the basis of sexuality? Are you saying that some kids with sexual issues get bullied at school and some of these commit suicide so therefore it must be the bullying that causes the suicide? Could there be no other reason for the suicide? Other kids who do not have sexual issues commit suicide so is it not possible that kids with sexual issues commit suicide for the same reasons as kids who do not have sexual issues?

Dear Phanto,

Could you please provide some evidence to your
claims about what you say the program provides.
I don't find your claims to be true.

There's a great deal of misinformation being
spread around about the program.

The program provides schools with practical
ideas to make schools safe for all -
students, families, and teachers as well.
That is why I support it. It is inclusive.
But then you would know those facts if you
had Googled the web and actually accessed
the links I gave.

“Could you please provide some evidence to your
claims about what you say the program provides.
I don't find your claims to be true.”

No because it is not necessary. Anyone who has watched the news in the last week knows that there is a special part of the program which focuses on kids with sexual issues. I am not going to pander to your elusiveness. Why did you introduce this as a topic if it has not been part of the news recently? Did you just pluck it out of a hat?

“There's a great deal of misinformation being
spread around about the program.”

I am not talking about mis-information, I am asking you questions about the information. Do you deny that there is a special part of the program devoted to kids with sexual issues?

“The program provides schools with practical
ideas to make schools safe for all -
students, families, and teachers as well.
That is why I support it. It is inclusive.
But then you would know those facts if you
had Googled the web and actually accessed
the links I gave.”

You are just telling me what I already know. I don’t need to access any links. If it is inclusive then why is there a need for a special program for kids with sexual issues?

Foxy: I watched "Q and A," last night and learned for the first time about something called the "Safe Schools," program.

I don't know where you've been for the last few months Foxy but this discussion has been all over the Papers, TV & other Media for Months.

My Question is, if this is set up, Will this give the LGBT tribe a chance to bully straights? I think it will. Any opportunity to stick it to straights will be taken with the utmost fervour.

Poirot: while allowing the regressives free reign to sprout their bigotry was the order of the day...."

See, started already. What beautiful language.

Poirot: So you go around accusing fellow posters of hate and perversion,

& Just what was the above?

Paul1405: but "not of much interest" to him (George Pell) at the time. Pell couldn't have cared less.

Every time I see Pell my Gaydar goes berserk that's why.

Bazz: It seems that we are seeing a recruitment campaign for homosexuals
in disguise as an anti bullying campaign. That seems to be the sub title of all this carryon.

You are dead right Bazz & any knock back a Gay get to his/her advance will be pushed as discriminatory.

Condensed to fit here and well worth reading in its entirety,

<Left falls into Queer extremists’ trap with Safe Schools program
by Jennifer Oriel
....

Consistent with neo-Marxist minority politics, the Safe Schools Coalition program has been funded on the rationale of victimhood. Ostensibly a program to counter bullying of youth who identify as lesbian, gay, intersex or transgender, it has been accepted in schools across Victoria with federal and Labor state government funding.

But the program is not simply a defence of lesbian and gay youth, basic respect, or human equality. Its co-founder Roz Ward has admitted it is part of a Marxist social change strategy. We should be worried about the change to come, given program resources include practices associated with Queer politics such as sex industry shops, chest-binding and penis-tucking.
The debate on the Safe Schools Coalition program is destructive not only to children, but to the gay community at large whose political diversity has been erased by ­activists keen to frame the issue as a battle between conservative hetero­sexuals and progressive ­homosexuals.

In reality, the debate is between those who support the right to childhood and children’s bodily dignity, the right to an education that educates, not indoctrinates, versus those who believe Marxist activism constitutes sound school curriculum.

The wealth of intellectual and political diversity among lesbian, gay and bisexual people is lost in the push to make Queer politics the public face of gay life.

Schoolchildren exposed to PC lessons in Queer politics are being robbed of a far finer legacy in the literary and artistic tradition of geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Oscar Wilde and the Bloomsbury Group.

How much greater students’ measure of human diversity would be if schools replaced politically correct programming with that apposite hilarity of Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, or the soaring verse of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. The best of ­humanity lies in its genius. Schools should rid the curriculum of oppressively mediocre activism and return to teaching greatness>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Jennifer+Oriel

Isn't this Marxist sourced campaign what we used to call "The Fifth Column ?".

Dear Jayb,

I've been away for quite some time.
I had a severe fall in September 2015
and ended up with a shattered femur in
my right leg and a shattered humerus in
my left shoulder, several seizures, blood
clots, brain damage, resulting in staying in
hospitals for over 13 weeks. Then I had to
stay at the Peter James Centre for Physio
and learn to walk again. I'm still doing
physio. Its been a long haul.
I'm only starting to make progress recently.

I hope that answers your question.

Cheers.

Safe Schools was launched "by the Abbott administration" in 2014. Here's what Scott Ryan (now Minister for Vocational Education and Skills in the Turnbull administration) said at the launch:

"While a safe and supportive school environment leads to many positive impacts for students, including improved academic outcomes, increased confidence and improved attendance that is not the only reason we strive for this.
It is simply the right thing to do.
Every student has a right to feel safe at school.

Bullying and the consequent victimization and isolation of children and young people have a much higher place in the public mind than they have held previously, in regard to the workplace as well as our schools.
What was not only tolerated but in a de facto sense almost encouraged at some schools only two decades ago is now universally frowned upon.
No longer do we turn a blind eye to or dismiss what was previously viewed as a group of kids having a bit of fun picking on another.

Issues once ignored, dismissed or simply never even noticed now form a much more significant part of our agenda in education.
And bullying today has some unique aspects.
Issues that were once suppressed, such as sexuality, pose challenges that were rarely contemplated until recently.

While there are specific challenges and lessons to learn about the gender and sexuality issues you are focusing on today, I think we all benefit from reflecting on our own experience and behaviour.
I am sure we can all recall times when we have been on the receiving end, but also occasions that we look back upon and regret, when we either did not stand up for the vulnerable or thought it was fun to make someone feel smaller than us.
It is this reflection upon our own behaviour that we have developed as adults and that we seek to inculcate in our children. It is a lesson that cannot be taught or learnt too early."

http://scottryan.com.au/media/national-safe-schools-symposium

Condensed to fit here and well worth reading in its entirety

Jayb,

"Poirot: while allowing the regressives free reign to sprout their bigotry was the order of the day...."

See, started already. What beautiful language.

Poirot: So you go around accusing fellow posters of hate and perversion,

& Just what was the above?"

The "above" my dear misguided Jayb was Poirot quoting the glorious runner Esq.....as in:

"The small part of Q&A I watched again highlighted how bigotted and rude Tony Jones, the abc and the homosexual lobby are. The constant interuptions to Mr Shelton while allowing the regressives free reign to sprout their bigotry was the order of the day. Why should we be surprised when the national broadcaster has been hijacked by social engineers and bullies. The ignorant/gullible getup crowd aslo seemed well over represented.

Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 2:35:25 PM"

So you should direct your enquiry accordingly...

“While there are specific challenges and lessons to learn about the gender and sexuality issues you are focusing on today,”

This might be true but doesn’t each type of bullying have their own ‘specific challenges and lessons to learn’? What makes sexuality issues more worthy of a special program? It may be a worthy program but how can it be more worthy than other such programs? If someone is in pain from bullying then how do you decide who is in the most pain? Is the program saying that the pain endured by kids with sexual issues is greater? How would they measure that?

It is obvious by the fact that they have created a special program for kids with sexual issues that they see it as the most important. It is reasonable to ask why.

“Condensed to fit here and well worth reading in its entirety”

You must have been the victim of a lot of sarcasm when you were young. Isn’t that how it works?

Dear Poirot,

Here's a link that helps explain the objections to the Safe
Schools Program:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/safe-schools-program-is-making-a-difference-20160227-gn5axk.html

Foxy:

So you have been sick but you have been well enough to post quite a few times while you were sick so you must have been keeping up with things. It hasn’t hampered you ability to read and write so why can’t you answer the questions that have been put to you?

phanto,

Make up your mind...

"It is obvious by the fact that they have created a special program for kids with sexual issues that they see it as the most important. It is reasonable to ask why."

A few posts ago you waxed lyrical:

"Anyone who has watched the news in the last week knows that there is a special part of the program which focuses on kids with sexual issues."

So it's a program - and part of the program addresses bullying on the issue of sexuality.

You appear to be having the vapours over "part" of a program directed at one issue, but not doing the same over other issues. Since many issues are covered in the program, why aren't you doing your block over bullying of fat children, or quiet children, or autistic children?

Nope your outrage is directed solely at children who are bullied for their sexuality....even going so far on another thread to confect a scenario whereby you insinuate the young person in question may be the bully!

People with attitudes like yours are the reason these types of programs are instituted.

.......

Thanks Foxy,

Here's something from Bill Shorten on the issue:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/29/bill-shorten-christensen-and-bernardi-remind-us-of-the-harm-words-can-do?CMP=soc_568

(Which should give otb hours of fun and loads of ammo for his next post:)

phanto,

"Foxy:

So you have been sick but you have been well enough to post quite a few times while you were sick so you must have been keeping up with things. It hasn’t hampered you ability to read and write so why can’t you answer the questions that have been put to you?"

While we understand that you get your jollies from verbally targeting anyone you consider fair game...the truly scintillating aspect of your blather is it's usually crap.

Foxy did not post while she was initially convalescing. She was away for a couple of months.

The most likely reason that she's not answered all your questions is because most of it is constructed garbage banging around between the two or three outraged neurons that inhabit your cranium...it's like a pinball machine in there!

So called "Transgender" schoolchildren are a miniscule part of the school population. These getup jobbies used them so as to bully the vast majority of the school population.
Evidence, when I was a lad it was "Coloured" people then it was "Black People" and now it is "People of Colour". What an absolute crock! The fact is these filthy Backup facistrs attack people who use the wrong terminology but of course behind their backs with that grubby little Tony Jones helping.
I want a list of "Approved" terms then any change should be rewarded with the Get-up rubbish being charged with racial insults and put through the wringer. These disgusting creatures, were so much in evidence on Monday's "Q & A".Bully everyone on the basis of words that Getup keep changing.
I fully expect to see "Transgenders" sueing us for the ridiculous amount of surgery wrongfully inflicted on them. Another lawyer's picnic!
By the bye can one of you geniuses explain to me Bruce Jenner? He has a pair of testicles, a penis and fake breasts and is a woman called Caitlyn? Please take a cold shower!

Foxy: I had a severe fall in September 2015.

Ouch! ya poor buggar. I hope you get better soon. You've done well on OLO & the Forum though. Just because the body gets shattered , doesn't mean the brain stops functioning though. Keep your spirits up.

Poirot: So you should direct your enquiry accordingly...

Apologies, consider it done.

Poirot:

“You appear to be having the vapours over "part" of a program directed at one issue, but not doing the same over other issues. Since many issues are covered in the program, why aren't you doing your block over bullying of fat children, or quiet children, or autistic children?”

Yes there is a wider program, a generic program if you like but it seems there is only a ‘special’ program for kids with sexual issues. Can you point me in the direction of any other ‘special’ programs? Are there any for fat children or quiet children or autistic children. If not then it is a blatant case of discrimination. Don’t you care about all those other kids?

“Nope your outrage is directed solely at children who are bullied for their sexuality”

Nope my outrage is directed towards those who allow special programs to be made just for kids with sexual issues.

“While we understand that you get your jollies from verbally targeting anyone you consider fair game”

Who is this ‘we’ you claim to speak on behalf of? Are you now some self-appointed team leader or something? How arrogant of you.

“The most likely reason that she's not answered all your questions is because most of it is constructed garbage”

Well let’s wait until we hear from her shall we or have you appointed yourself her spokesperson as well? How patronising! I asked her not you.

phanto,

"Yes there is a wider program, a generic program if you like but it seems there is only a ‘special’ program for kids with sexual issues. Can you point me in the direction of any other ‘special’ programs? Are there any for fat children or quiet children or autistic children. If not then it is a blatant case of discrimination. Don’t you care about all those other kids?"

Here are the nine elements of the Safe Schools program:

* Leadership commitment to a safe school
* A supportive and connected school culture
* Policies and procedures
* Professional learning
* Positive behaviour management
* Engagement, skill development and safe school curriculum
* A focus on student wellbeing and student ownership
* Early intervention and targeted support
* Partnerships with families and community

Can you point me in the direction of any ‘special’ programs?

Do you think it's a great idea to tackle bullying..except if the victim is being targeted for their sexuality?

In that case... should the bully be allowed to go right ahead?

"Well let’s wait until we hear from her shall we or have you appointed yourself her spokesperson as well? How patronising! I asked her not you."

Wuz merely pointing out your latest construction..aka "invented scenario" re Foxy, was as accurate as all your other invented scenarios...ergo not accurate at all.

Dear Poirot,

Your posts always cheer me up.
Thank You. A breath of fresh air.

As far as my coming back to the Forum after
my fall?

It helps to distract
me from the feelings of nausea that are so
persistent and
frequent during the day due to my medication.
I take so many tablets - it's a wonder I don't
rattle when I move. Going on the Forum - has been a
salvation for me. It helps
me to focus on issues instead of my problems.

I tend to be selective with whom I interact.
I try in good faith but when I see that it's a
waste of my time I no longer bother.

As a result - I don't read some
posts that I find to be simply prejudice or nonsense.
And from
experience I've learned that getting
involved with these people doesn't produce anything
productive. Best to ignore them.

Dear Jayb,

Thank you for your well wishes.
I appreciate them greatly.

“Can you point me in the direction of any ‘special’ programs?”

What about the one that has been discussed in federal parliament, the one that talks of the Gender Fairy, chest binding and penis tucking. Who is that program for?

“Do you think it's a great idea to tackle bullying..except if the victim is being targeted for their sexuality?”

Yes of course it a great idea to tackle bullying – including yours – but discrimination is not a good thing would’t you say? Being discriminated against by favouring special groups should be outlawed wherever it happens including in education programs. It is telling kids who are bullied for non-sexual issues that their bullying is less of importance to the education system and their school and teachers.

If there was anything that creates an atmosphere conducive to bullying it is ‘playing favourites’ in favour of kids with sexual issues.

It sounds to me that you do not value anti-discrimination.

“Wuz merely pointing out your latest construction”

OK then if you were not patronising Foxy then you do not need to defend yourself to anyone.

phanto,

".... Being discriminated against by favouring special groups should be outlawed wherever it happens including in education programs..."

Oh, so children such as those who are autistic shouldn't have access to special programs to aid their development?

Those kids are "special groups'.

What about deaf children...no special programs for them, eh?

"....It is telling kids who are bullied for non-sexual issues that their bullying is less of importance to the education system and their school and teachers...."

What a load of bollocks.

And finally we come to the biggest load of rubbish you've spouted.

I ask: “Can you point me in the direction of any ‘special’ programs?”

"What about the one that has been discussed in federal parliament, the one that talks of the Gender Fairy, chest binding and penis tucking. Who is that program for?"

That's not a program connected with Safe Schools....go on - show me the evidence that "Gender Fairy, chest binding and penis tucking" are part of the Safes Schools' program?

"OK then if you were not patronising Foxy then you do not need to defend yourself to anyone."

Lol!

" Yes of course it a great idea to tackle bullying – including yours..."

A classic example of the bully who comes onto a thread, continues butting and picking no-substance arguments with the person who started the thread - and then yodels to the heavens when someone calls out their constructions.

Yes indeed Poirot, it is often bullies like Onthebeach, Runner and Phanto who cry the loudest when they are either ignored or called out for their poor behaviour towards others on this forum.
In reality, they are the biggest bullies on this site, and best ignored.

The Safe Schools Program will need to remain in place now, because all the homophobes and others scared of people different from themselves in any way have yelled too loudly against it.
Imagine if it was thrown out and there was a rise in gay bullying or bashing at schools?
I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee at that thought.
All the bigots have achieved is to shoot themselves in the foot...

Foxy: Thank you for your well wishes. I appreciate them greatly.

You're welcome. Having just had my throat cut....

Foxy: I don't read some posts that I find to be simply prejudice or nonsense.

So does that mean that anyone that doesn't agree with your, or the currently required Green, PC, Lefty, Goodie, Goodie Two Shoes or GetUp view is totally ignored by you?

I do think the Special emphasis on the potentially Gay children is being pushed hard by the GLTB people. They are & always will be trying to recruit children to the Dark Side. They did even when I was a kid.

I had a few episodes with Gay men trying their luck. I threw one off a Tram once, right in front of a Policeman. I was just 17 at the time & he kept touching me all the way to the Valley. The Copper grabbed me & when I explained what happened he grabbed the po.. man & threw me back on the tram. Unfortunately it was my stop & I missed my train. If I'd have done that nowadays I suspect I would have arrested for refusing his advances.

SOL: Imagine if it was thrown out and there was a rise in gay bullying or bashing at schools?

That's an unproven assumption designed to force a Politically Correct view. Fear mongering Is used to great effect by all the great Advertizing Agencies to sell all sorts of useless Crap.

I notice that the language used in this safe schools program is similar
to that used in academic circles of universities these days.
Very distinctive in discussions on safe universities for blacks, gays
aborigines, etc.
It seems to have come from US universities and is very very PC.

I am not specifically referring to the Indigenous computer room at
Brisbane university but it does fit the description.
It is very left in orientation and furthermore it is very aggressive
towards unsympathetic students and academics.
I would think that students graduating with those attitudes would not
be of much use to any employer except universities.

Why would blacks in American universities need "safe" areas ?
Why would aborigine students in Brisbane need "safe" areas ?

Has anyone else noticed this trend ?

Bazz,

You have a point.

Did you get a chance to peruse Jennifer Oriel's article, "Left falls into Queer extremists’ trap with Safe Schools program"? See here,

onthebeach, Wednesday, 2 March 2016 1:49:28 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7213&page=5

Taking a brief section,

"Consistent with neo-Marxist minority politics, the Safe Schools Coalition program has been funded on the rationale of victimhood.

Ostensibly a program to counter bullying of youth who identify as lesbian, gay, intersex or transgender, it has been accepted in schools across Victoria with federal and Labor state government funding.

But the program is not simply a defence of lesbian and gay youth, basic respect, or human equality. Its co-founder Roz Ward has admitted it is part of a Marxist social change strategy. We should be worried about the change to come, given program resources include practices associated with Queer politics such as sex industry shops, chest-binding and penis-tucking."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Jennifer+Oriel

Also, from OLO

<Safer schools or a radical Marxist sexual revolution?

By Pat Byrne - posted Friday, 19 February 2016

Publicly the person who set up the Safe Schools Coalition program says it’s to stop bullying and suicides, but she told a Marxism conference it was part of a wider Marxist strategy to radically change society.

Roz Ward, from La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, told the Melbourne 2015 Marxism Conference, “In 2010 … I was the person who set up Safe Schools Coalition in Victoria” (SSCV). This program has now been expanded to become the federally funded Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA).

The public defence of the SSCA’s particular format has been that it’s necessary to stop bullying and reduce self-harm among LGBTI students and students claiming various sexual identities other than male or female.

However, to the Marxism Conference, Roz Ward gave a Marxist analysis of how the ruling capitalist class imposed conventional notions of male and female, sex, marriage and natural family on society to “break the spirits of ordinary people”.

Like any ideology, sexual Marxism has its own language that needs to be deciphered.>

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18033

So "Safe areas" is a Marxist tool and needs to be understood as such.

The 'victims' are used a a blunt weapon to belt 'capitalism'.

The safe schools program is not going to secure safety for cross dressers entering the toilets of the gender they dress. as girls dressed as boys entering male toilets will lead to sexual abuse and boys dressed as girls entering boys toilets as they have done are open to assault.

The only thing to change toilet assault is to have rows of enclosed cubicles without entrance foyer. However street violence will not change. I feel for a cross dress guy in his late 30's raised as a girl by his mother at our church does he use disabled toilets, male or female when he has previously dressed as male.
cont

Lol!...otb trundling along on the Marxist bandwagon.

"So "Safe areas" is a Marxist tool and needs to be understood as such.

The 'victims' are used a a blunt weapon to belt 'capitalism'."

For anyone who's interested, Jason Wilson gives a potted history in this article on the right's "Cultural Marxism....neo-Marxist" bunkum - (referencing Chris Uhlmann's recent article on the subject)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/chris-uhlmann-should-mind-his-language-on-cultural-marxism

"The “cultural Marxism” theory was developed towards the end of the cold war to open up a new front against the left: the culture war against a supposed “political correctness”.

The SPLC describes the theory as “bizarre”, because it is. The Frankfurt School once in the US were primarily focused on the origins of far right authoritarianism, not the subversion of the US."

Any critique of American values they made – for example in the work of Theodore Adorno – was on the basis of a lament for the decline of traditional European high culture in the face of post-war commercial culture. Anyone who thinks otherwise has likely not read their work.

And anyone who looks at the global contemporary capitalist order would find it hard to believe that we are living under a Marxist hegemony.

The decline of traditional values is a result of the relentlessly transformative nature of capitalism itself, not the work of a small group of emigre Marxists who are little read now even among academics."

"In 2002, when they first reported on it, the SPLC called it “the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right”, but worried about “signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream”.

It’s still popular on the far right – increasingly so. Everyone from white nationalists to militant antifeminists on “the redpill right” still relies on it as an explanatory theory of history. The notion was central to the thought of Anders Breivik, who massacred young social democrats in Norway.

But the SPLC were right to predict its penetration of mainstream conservatism. The sclerotic inhabitants of the Australian’s op-ed page appear to have a particular affinity with this line of thought."

Josephus: girls dressed as boys entering male toilets will lead to sexual abuse

No, Girls dressed as boys go to the girls toilet because that's where the girls are that they want to turn Gay.

Hi Poirot,

This is probably getting off the track, but I would have thought that Marcuse and Gramsci were more likely to be the theorists of any post-Marxist 'cultural Marxism', rather than the blokes in the Frankfurt School. I have to admit an admiration for Gramsci or at least sympathy for the tribulations he had to go through all of his life, but even back in the sixties, I considered Marcuse a bit of a show-pony.

My sympathy for Gramsci's bitterness were mirrored in my own experiences in factories, etc. in the sixties and early seventies, anxiously watching for any sign whatever that the workers would ever move in the direction of Revolution. It didn't, and with hindsight, there's no reason why it should have thrown itself on the battlements for the benefit of a revolutionary elite. So, not having read Gramsci then, I thought that maybe there had to be a progressive Indigenous movement which might, in turn, and eventually, re-invigorate the workers. Naïve, naïve, naïve !

But I can't recall any feeling to want to tear down all of the institutions of capitalism, more about how to build better institutions. I don't know if any other ex-Marxists feel the same way ? After all - and I'm obviously taking Uhlmann's analysis as being fairly accurate - once one tears down an institution, like marriage, or freedom of expression, or respect for labour - what does one put in their place ?

[TBC]

[continued]

I suspect that sections of the post-Left are still hooked on the insane notion of provoking repression, such as the urban guerilla movements in South America promoted in the seventies and eighties - that if 'we' can provoke the reactionaries to repress the people to an intolerable level, to bring out the army and secret police and slaughter the people indiscriminately, they will revolt and bingo ! revolution. It didn't work anywhere, by the way. All the people got was more repression.

As well, I suspect that sections of the post-Left still have to reach adulthood and are fixated on their adolescent 'nyah ! nyah !' view of politics, in which any stick which annoys the 'establishment' will do, a sort of child's revolt against their boring, ignorant and repressive parents.

So the question remains: once the institutions of capitalism have been torn down, what should be put in their place, if anything ? Clearly, the sum total of hundreds of years of experience of Soviet- or Chinese-type socialism - command socialism - has not worked - if anything, THEIR institutions have been shown to be bankrupt - and have been torn down in many places.

So again, what do we replace bourgeois or capitalist institutions with, once we have destroyed the people's trust in them ?

Just asking :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"So the question remains: once the institutions of capitalism have been torn down, what should be put in their place, if anything ? Clearly, the sum total of hundreds of years of experience of Soviet- or Chinese-type socialism - command socialism - has not worked - if anything, THEIR institutions have been shown to be bankrupt - and have been torn down in many places."

Guffaw!

Yeah, it's obvious that capitalism is in real danger of being "torn down".

Cultural Marxism and Neo Marxism are merely umbrella catchphrases for the radical right to shelter under while they're running around shrieking that the sky is falling because someone institutes a program which promotes respect to people they don't approve of.

Like Uhlmann raising the spectre because people critiqued Abbott's speech to a bunch of radical right-wing religious zealots in the US. Uhlmann banged on (as only a self-constructed member of the "New Victim Brigade" could, that those commenting adversely on Abbott's speech were attacking "freedom of speech"...the obvious take from that is that they should shut-up.

He appeared to have overlooked the fact that he was denying other people's right to the freedom he was demanding for Abbott.

You fellas can't see that capitalism itself is the driver of its own societal mores.

Yodelling "It's a Marxist plot" from the rooftops will only find you an audience among fellow right-wing bleaters whose only interest is in indulging their own bigotry.

In several N.S.W schools schools toilets are no longer "girls" and "boys" as each are open to how the person prefers to identifies themselves. This is not going to stop assaults or rape. Many parents have since withdrawn their daughters from such schools as unsafe.

Josephus: In several N.S.W schools schools toilets are no longer "girls" and "boys" as each are open to how the person prefers to identifies themselves. This is not going to stop assaults or rape. Many parents have since withdrawn their daughters from such schools as unsafe.

Uni-sex toilets have been around forever. I have never heard of any problems. There is a separate room for the Urinal. The Dorm at James Cook were Uni-sex in the 70's.

The Army as had Unisex toilets since the 80's. In fact the original ones at Shoalwater Bay from 67 were open pedestal & used by both sexes. I haven't been there since so I don't know if they've been up graded. I remember sitting on the Loo & having conversations & swopping pages of the local Newspaper with the female soldier on the next pedestal. No problems.

The open air showers had a Hessian partition between the two showering stations to separate the sexes & waist high Hessian around the sides. That was about as good as clear cellophane. No one cared or made a big deal out of it. Just glad to get clean after 2 weeks in the bush.

I think its all a load of crap.
Its human nature even as kids to make friends with those who are LIKE us, and single out or make fun of those who are DIFFERENT.
Whilst we can try to teach kids to be tolerant of others, we must accept that this mechanism above is a part of competitive human nature.
It's part of our DNA.
I don't see how teaching young kids about gay sex will help anymore than simply teaching them to try to be respectful towards others.
I don't see how its legally or morally right for people other than parents to 'officially' teach kids about this stuff whilst they are under the legal age of performing it.

Its a parents jobs to raise their kids and talk about sex, not some other paid person with an agenda.

Its a schools job to educate a child with knowledge for employment, not indoctrination for politically correct social issues.

I think there should be 'unisex' toilets provided at all schools so that anyone can use them. It beats me why this subject is so upsetting to some. At the end of the day, if all kids used closed cubicles to do their business in, no one would know any difference.

Personally, I doubt that Karl Marx would have given a damn which toilets were used by whom, and I remain amused why some would-be communist people go on about a Russian from last century who has no bearing on anything happening now, especially in Australia.
Drag yourselves into this century and leave boringly inappropriate Russian history in the past I say...

Poirot, "Yodelling 'It's a Marxist plot' from the rooftops"

You must be directing that comment at Roz Ward, the manager and co-founder of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria,

"Safe Schools Coalition Victoria co-founder Roz Ward has also conceded the Safe Schools Coalition program is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society.
..
The architect behind a contentious sexual diversity program set to become mandatory across all Victorian schools is an outspoken hard-left warrior who has publicly denounced Immigration Minister Peter Dutton as a sexist prick"
(from the SBS site today)

A post from The Australian today and spot on,

"The objective of the Safe Schools Coalition is to stop bullying in schools. An admirable aim if that were its sole aim. But we now learn that the architect of this program has admitted that it is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society (“Schools activist raises red flag”, 1/3). That may not have come as a surprise to the [leftist] progressive minority who advocate anything that tends to the Left, but it would have come out of left field for many teachers and parents who have supported the program so far. The discovery that the underlying aim of the program is extremely Left will no doubt have a negative effect on that support.

Creating a society that does not acknowledge gender difference in any way, and that is equal in all aspects of human interaction, is a Marxist dream that has been tried and failed. Yes, children should be taught to have respect for each other but that can be achieved through co-operation between teachers and parents and a sensible approach to sex education in schools and at home"
(Elizabeth Todd, NSW)

It will be interesting to read the results that will
be published of the Review of the Safe Schools Program.
The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull has called for
one. Which should satisfy the critics.

Penny Wong stated - "I didn't think people would
have such an issue with their children being taught
acceptance and tolerance."

The Safe Schools Program is not compulsory.
Only schools that want the program access it.

Also it should be made clear that -
it does not link or recommend any pornographic
web content, sex shops, adult online comments or sex
adult contents websites in any of its material.

Hopefully the Review will clarify things after
March 11th - and this controversy will appear for what
it really is - a storm in a tea-cup perpetrated by
people who are prejudiced against anything that is
outside the heterosexual scenario.

Bigotry is bigotry whether it's dressed up in the
language of faith, marxism, or anti "difference"
or not.

Hi Poirot,

[Brief aside: In French, 'chatot' means 'kitten', i.e. from 'chat' - 'cat. So I suppose 'poirot' could man 'little pear', from 'poire'. Just suggesting.]

I was suggesting hypothetically: I agree that, apart from a hell of a lot of damage, cultural Marxists are not likely to actually tear down any capitalist institutions. On the other hand, they may unintentionally force people generally, except perhaps their own adherents, to re-assess their values, to take stock of what they really do believe in, and not to take anything for granted and for that impulse towards scepticism, they should be slightly commended.

After all, for example, would any of us have given a second thought about the hypothetical possibilities of, say, global warming, until the story of global warming was proposed ? would any sane person amongst us have even considered the supposed 'angers' of vaccination if some charlatan hadn't suggested them ?

Scepticism is the best weapon against such frauds, as I'm sure you would agree, so if there any such creatures as 'cultural Marxists', then they have done us some service.

Cheers,

Joe

'Dangers' of vaccination. Oy.

Suseonline, "I think there should be 'unisex' toilets provided at all schools so that anyone can use them. It beats me why this subject is so upsetting to some"

Yet the Germaine Greer and the self-entitled, middle class Oz feminists totally reject transgenders using women's toilets. Not 'real' women they say. Presumably you would agree with that.

In the federal public service the feminist clerical unions insist that M->F trans use the men's (not on say the trans), or the disabled toilets. Strangely, F->W trans are OK in women's toilets. Complicated.

So, at schools do the teachers and visiting public use unisex too? Reasons either way?

Perhaps the leftist 'Progressives' just flex the message to suit their secondary agenda at the time. Which seems to be the case in this instance. Wolf in sheep's clothing and all that.

Suseonline, "At the end of the day, if all kids used closed cubicles to do their business in, no one would know any difference"

From unions too, where women's facilities at work are concerned.

Do you propose an age cut-off and if so, at what age and why?

Unisex toilets and change facilities (it isn't just toilets !) - how to handle the numbers for swimming, sports changes and so on? Or and more like it, are the Trots obsessed with toilets?

It would be very noticeable in a school's building and maintenance. Hugely expensive and prohibitively expensive to retrofit.

Economy of facilities and space is the reason for the lesser equipped male toilets.

As well, men do not have the convenience and benefit of the paper after urinating. Some would like that, which could be an advantage.

Shared facilities would have suited my wife and I when the children were young. My wife was scowled at for taking small boys into women's toilets and despite the separate cubicles. We both would never have allowed the children to enter public toilets by themselves.

That all suggests that you and your Trots mates should be concentrating on community adult public facilities first and leave schoolchildren and schools' facilities alone.

To correct an error in the above,

"In the federal public service the feminist clerical unions insist that M->F trans use the men's (not on say the trans), or the disabled toilets. Strangely, F->M trans are OK in women's toilets."

OTB: The architect behind a contentious sexual diversity program set to become mandatory across all Victorian schools is an outspoken hard-left warrior who has publicly denounced Immigration Minister Peter Dutton as a sexist prick" (from the SBS site today)

Now wouldn't you say that that was Bullying & buy the very person setting up the programme. Do as I say, don't do as I do. Actually I find a lot of that type of thing happening with Feminists. Two faced, eh.

OTB,

"You must be directing that comment at Roz Ward, the manager and co-founder of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria,

"Safe Schools Coalition Victoria co-founder Roz Ward has also conceded the Safe Schools Coalition program is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society"

Okay....now you stump up with a direct quote from Roz Ward where she states so.

That's a genuine request. If Roz Ward conceded Safe Schools is part of a broader Marxist strategy, then it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with the exact quote...and not some regurgitated line from a Murdoch hack.

Also, can any of you right-wingers explain why you are all so obsessed with other people's sex lives? Nary a minute goes by these days without some rightie opining on the carry-on behind the closed bedroom doors of complete strangers.

What is it with this fascination for sex that has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally?

And now I see the right-wingers on this forum are extending their rather weird sexual fixation into what goes on in various toilets up and down the country.

You have to admit it's all a little warped.

Josephus seems to think two genders can't use a toilet facility without trying to molest each other.

Goodness knows where he gets his debased ideas from....

Marx, Granski & their compatriots have no relationship to the modern 21 Century. These people lived in an entirely different World to the one we live in. The Culture of today bears no relationship to the Victorian & beyond era. I don't understand the fascination with their Ideals.

Poirot: Josephus seems to think two genders can't use a toilet facility without trying to molest each other.

I even have a uni-sex toilet in my own home. None of our friends have ever complained, & I leave the seat up. I figure it's just as easy for them to put the seat down as it is for me to put the seat up. ;-)

Dear Poirot,

Fear mongering and trying to drag us back to the
dark ages is common place amongst the righteous
right. As Jill Stark writing for the Sydney
Morning Herald points out -
Take Cory Bernardi (please). He's one of many
who claims that the Safe Schools program is being
used to "indoctrinate children" into a "Marxist"
agenda of cultural relativism."

This follows repeated
attacks from the Australian Christian Lobby who claims
that this is part of a "political ideology" to "promote
queer sexuality." None of it is true. But their agenda
is working with some people as is obvious from this
discussion.

Leaving aside the irony as Stark tells us of the religious
right crying out about "indoctrination" in the classroom
while they happily champion taxpayer-funded religious
schools and a $245 million chaplaincy scheme. Lets look
at the facts:

The Safe Schools Coalition was not pushed upon an unwitting education system by "gay activists."

It was set up in Victoria in 2010 in response to requests
from Principals and teachers to help them with students
at their schools. This program has the backing of
Beyond Blue, the Australian Secondary Principal's Association,
the Australian Council of State School's Association and
the Australian Education Union to name just a few.

Hopefully the proposed Review will clarify a great deal.

Jayb, Your toilet is not a place where conflicting teenagers meet at break times. From memory many fights happened in school toilet blocks and they were not about gay issues either.

Having worked alongside youth on the street sex counselors teenagers refuse to be counseled by adults about their sex activity. We were there running a battle of the street music bands. Teenagers are less likely to accept persons of difference, it can only happen if parents set the example. Ask parents of different race / religions if boys visiting girls toilets is acceptable. It is not just the Christian right who abject to the agenda of the immoral left.

Josephus, I don't recall anyone suggesting boys should use girl's toilets, or vice versa?
Surely the provision of even just one unisex toilet set up at each school would be enough for the very few, if any, transgender kids that might attend each school?
It is not as though there are dozens of them at each school, as it is actually quite rare.

So I am well aware that all this fuss is caused by the hatred and ignorance re anyone who isn't heterosexual.

I would imagine though that if a school did happen to have one or two transgender kids, then the thought of a very feminine type boy dressed as a girl using the girls cubicle toilet is highly unlikely to cause much angst amongst intelligent girls! It is far more likely to upset their parents or completely unrelated bigoted adults.
I believe that these sort of transgender people aren't attracted to their own gender, so there wouldn't be any 'hanky-panky' going on anyway.

So, just admit it Josephus (and others) you can't bear the thought of anyone even acknowledging gay or transgender people of any kind, because that old outdated book called the bible tells you that it is an 'abomination'.
Well why not select your bag of stones and rush out to stone some of the local adulterers as well then?

https://www.facebook.com/ACLobby/videos/999794580094639/?fref=nf

Not to allow each gender to enter the others current toilets is gender discrimination.

Rehctub & Hasbeen:
Having scanned through hat lot, when the great crash comes and we are
forced back to say a 16th century economy how do you think all these
trendies with art degrees sprouting the sort of rubbish that triggered
it all off will survive ?

How many hours later?

And Josephus is still banging on and indulging his fixation on gender and toilets.

Kinda creepy.....

Josephus: https://www.facebook.com/ACLobby/videos/999794580094639/?fref=nf

That is absolutely frightening. How say you, those for the programme?

We are in the middle of a Child abuse inquiry while children under 18 years are being groomed to view pornography of sexual abnormality. Some in society think sex with a dog is normal and should not be punished.

Poirot:

"And Josephus is still banging on and indulging his fixation on gender and toilets.

Kinda creepy....."

And you ever the voyeur needing to smirk to the group about other people's fixations.

LOL!

Yeah Poirot does not think teaching 11 year old girls about anal sex is not creepy and perverted. I am sure many parents are thrilled.

"Yeah Poirot does not think teaching 11 year old girls about anal sex is not creepy and perverted. I am sure many parents are thrilled."

And here goes another one...the delightful. runner.

Don't you religious types ever get your minds off sex?

'
Don't you religious types ever get your minds off sex?'

not when regressives want to groom and pervert young kids.

"not when regressives want to groom and pervert young kids"

Keep it up, runner.

I've never heard quite so much banter on perversion - from you and your religious mate, Josephus.

Here's his latest:

"We are in the middle of a Child abuse inquiry while children under 18 years are being groomed to view pornography of sexual abnormality. Some in society think sex with a dog is normal and should not be punished."

The two of you run around the forum ad nauseam getting your jollies from conjuring up the most debased and perverted scenarios and then slopping them up and down threads.

Perhaps both of you should attempt to pull your imaginations out of the sewer - and join in the conversation like normal people.

Some of us are sick of your smut.

Josephus " Not to allow each gender to enter the others current toilets is gender discrimination."
No, not allowing women to be priests, archbishops, bishops and popes in the Catholic Church is discrimination, as is forcing women to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies and insisting they stay married to hated men for life (no divorce).

And yes, we are in the middle of a disgusting Royal Commission into child sexual abuse of both little girls and little boys by Catholic priests and brothers in Australia over the past 60 years at least. People are rightly disgusted about this behavior, and the resulting cowardly criminal coverup by their superiors, and yet some of you are overly concerned about this anti-bullying Safe Schools program?
Pathetic...

Suseonline,
I am not Catholic and equally disgusted as you at those that pervert relationships with children for selfish ends. Most Catholics are equally disgusted as perverted Priests molesting children under 18. However you seem to approve of the State by education encouraging grooming of under 18 year old by the perverted sex industry web sites.

Hi Poirot,

I think you're right - leave the toilets alone: girls use girls' toilets, boys use boys' toilets, and be done with it. Any kid who feels he or she is not a he or she but a she or a he can use their biologically-oriented toilet until they get the surgery. Hermaphrodites can use either. There: problem soled.

Let's lift our minds above these trivial issues. So what's next ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
Not that simple. Enmore High School N.S.W has stated that girls who see themselves as male and dress as such can use boys toilets and boys that see themselves as female and dress as such can use female toilets. That is why many mothers are removing their daughters from such schools. Boys do not have periods and girls seek privacy during that time. This is not a safe environment. Tomboyish girls in male toilets re equally vulnerable to abuse

Josephus,

More weirdness...

"...Boys do not have periods and girls seek privacy during that time...."

What do you think happens in the toilet block when girls have their periods?

Answer: - Nothing much.

Girls enter the toilet cubicle as usual - spend time doing what they need to do - and then leave the cubicle, wash their hands and exit the toilet block.

All the privacy required is the same privacy required for normal toileting...eg, a cubicle with a door.

What a curiously warped outlook you possess regarding your fellow humans, Josephus.

Poor Josephus - who taught you to think as you do?

Josephus, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Paedophiles are known to 'groom' kids and their families so they can abuse the kids.
We aren't talking about paedophiles in school toilets here are we?
It is not as though we are discussing church confessionals!

Let me make one fact perfectly clear.
No amount of 'education' is going to 'turn' any child into a gay or transgender person.
They were born that way. Your God made them that way, if that makes it easier for you to understand...

SOL: Paedophiles are known to 'groom' kids and their families so they can abuse the kids.

& Paedophiles are..... Homosexual or Lesbian mostly.

SOL: No amount of 'education' is going to 'turn' any child into a gay or transgender person. They were born that way.

No, but it makes the job a lot easier for the predatory Paedophiles (GLTB). Doesn't it. This is what the Programme is all about really. Isn't it? By the way, if they were born that way, Some are, some aren't, then the problems is in the Gene's & defective Gene's can be fixed nowadays.

Suseonline:

"Let me make one fact perfectly clear.
No amount of 'education' is going to 'turn' any child into a gay or transgender person.
They were born that way. Your God made them that way, if that makes it easier for you to understand..."

Do you have any evidence to back up this perfectly clear fact?

'Some of us are sick of your smut.' more to the point Poirot I am sick of the smut you support to be given to young boys and girls. You will be ignorant enough to ask why their is so much dv and rape while being in denial that your ideology is contributing greatly to it.

btw I did not know you supported thinking like a 'normal' person. That does not usually fit your narrative.

runner,

Take my advice and get your head out of the sewer.

There's so much more to the world than spending all your time thinking about sexual deviance and running around threads calling other people perverted.

I mean, that's the entire extent of your argument.

All these years on this forum and you haven't progressed one iota.

And here you are saving your greatest outrage to denigrate a program based on respecting fellow humans.

That's got you spitting chips and dropping your fave word "perverted" almost every post.

Sad....

Here is another link as to what the Safe Schools Coalition
does:

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/what-we-do

It might be useful to find out the facts rather than
spread misinformation.

'All these years on this forum and you haven't progressed one iota.'

yeah Poirot as a good self righteous regressive you have gone backwards.

Poirot:

What satisfaction do you get from abusing people, denigrating them, ridiculing them and sarcastically putting them down? Even if they are everything you say they are then what is the point of pointing it out to them other than a desire to try and hurt them? How does it contribute to an understanding of the issues raised in the thread?

It appears to me that 90 per cent of your contributions are devoted to trying to hurt others. What does that teach young people? You seem to consider the safe schools program is good because it lessens the bullying that kids have to endure but you also are showing them by your example that everything changes once they get out of school and run into people like you who cannot have a reasonable discussion without aiming to hurt the people they are having the discussion with.

Just because other people on the forum use the same tactics as you do does not make it right. Bullying anywhere or place is wrong so why do you personally feel the need to do it and more importantly why do you need to do it here? This forum exists in order to discuss issues which most of us care about. It is not a platform for personal bitterness and relevance deprivation syndrome. So why do you resort to such behaviour?

Rarely do you have anything valuable to say to the topic and when others seek to find out your opinion you just retreat or attack them. Abusing these forums as a way of avoiding you insecurities shows a complete lack of respect for those who come here with genuine motives.

So we've all probably agreed that bullying is wrong, except perhaps Poirot who enjoys it, but we can excuse that, she's probably born that way.

So what else about 'Safe Schools' ? At school, boys to use boys' toilets, girls to use girls' toilets, a unisex toilet should be built for those who want one, just like at home. Right. Tick.

Kids in their early teens should be confronted with the hypothetical that they have no genitals, or they have the other' gender's genitals. Fantastic. Exciting, even !

Just when kids may be having all sorts of uneasy feelings about their bits and pieces, just when their hormones are starting to rage uncontrollably, someone steps in to stir the possum. Great !

And then encourages them to get on the internet without their parents knowing - parents are such bastards ! - and, unintentionally, get in touch with their local friendly pedophile ! Just wonderful !

At this rate, we could pull bourgeois society down within a generation ! Keep it up, guys !

But, seriously, don't forget what it's all supposed to be about: ending the bullying of homosexual kids in schools. Ah yeah, right.

Joe

phanto,

That's quite an impressive post.

That post is akin to the actions of the swaggering school bully who's finally had his nose pushed in and is running shrieking to the headmaster, telling everyone on the way that he's being bullied.

"Rarely do you have anything valuable to say to the topic and when others seek to find out your opinion you just retreat or attack them. Abusing these forums as a way of avoiding you insecurities shows a complete lack of respect for those who come here with genuine motives."

You've bent over backwards on that other thread to blame that young man for his bullying...insinuating on several occasions that he himself was the problem...with no evidence to draw that conclusion...is that your example of "a genuine motive"?

You. phanto, make a habit of jumping on a thread to sprinkle your consrutucted scenarios. You then label these imaginings "questions". Never mind that they have no basis in fact and are merely suppositions - you demand that anyone you happen to address should answer them...pronto!

If they don't respond to your suppositions, you then get quite snarky.

When your arguments are shot down in flames, you come out with the most ridiculous retorts.

Regarding runner, whom one presumes you are defending with your mini tirade. runner, has no argument. runner has an ideology which he assumes allows him to sit at his keyboard calling people bigots, perverts and haters. I tend to call that out for the brazen vacuous cowardice it is.

"It appears to me that 90 per cent of your contributions are devoted to trying to hurt others..."

You're a typical bully.

You don't like it when you can't manipulate the discussion. You don't like it when someone out-manoeuvres your agenda and calls you out for your embroidered commentary. You don't like it when someone stands up to you.

Parents, teachers and the public expect that government is always an honest broker, particularly where social policy affecting children and their parents is concerned.

The Safe Schools Program will always be under a cloud, always suspect as will be its implementers after Roz Ward, the manager and co-founder of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, was quoted telling a Marxist conference that the Safe Schools Coalition program is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society.

There are better uses for taxpayers' money.

Hi Poirot,

That's quite an impressive post.

That post is akin to the actions of the swaggering school bully who's finally had his nose pushed in and is running shrieking to the headmaster, telling everyone on the way that he's being bullied. I remember a school bully like that at Chester Hill PS: his dad was the headmaster. I wonder how often that's happened.

Rarely do you have anything valuable to say to the topic and when others seek to find out your opinion you just retreat or attack them. Abusing these forums as a way of avoiding your insecurities shows a complete lack of respect for those who come here with genuine motives. That's okay, we all have insecurities.

You Poirot, make a habit of jumping on a thread to sprinkle your constructed scenarios. You then label these imaginings, "fact". Never mind that they have no actual basis in fact, and are merely suppositions - you demand that anyone you happen to address should answer them...pronto!

If they don't respond to your suppositions, you then get quite snarky. And if they do, you get even more inflammatory and diversionary, a bit like a wounded swan.

When your arguments are shot down in flames, you come out with the most ridiculous retorts.

Regarding runner, you seem to have a desperate tactic to sit at your keyboard calling people who might defend him bigots and haters. Some of us would call that out for the brazen vacuous cowardice it is, but I am more forgiving.

"It appears to me that 90 per cent of your contributions are devoted to trying to hurt others..."

You're a typical bully.

You don't like it when you can't manipulate the discussion. You don't like it when someone out-manoeuvres your agenda and calls you out for your embroidered commentary. You don't like it when someone stands up to you.

Have I got all that right ?

Trolling is fun, but perhaps can we get back to evidence-based discussions ?

Cheers,

Joe

Yeah, thanks, Loudy....

You're such a clever vegemite, I can hardly stand it.

You'll have to tell us how you developed your considerable talent at being able to deliver a witty rejoinder while simultaneously managing to leave out the actual wit!

It's a considerable talent.

You fellas hate it when someone stands up to you...it gets right up your nose.

There's phanto strewing his "questions" all about - and "demanding" we answer them - and impugning us if we choose not to.

But woe betide anyone who tells it like it is.

Then Joe will come out with absolutely nothing of his own - not even his usual trusty bag of sarcasm (at the cleaners is it?) - and say "Trolling is fun...let's get back to evidence-based discussions."

Lol!...you appear to be defending phanto with your latest whizz-bang copy-cat post...he's the guy whose argument rest is making stuff up and demanding we comment on it

Poirot:

Well you walked right into that. If you are so innocent then you would have stopped reading my post after the first sentence. Instead you have read it all and gone to great lengths to defend yourself.

It was a simple question really – why do you feel the need to hurt people on this forum? Of course if you answer it will be because you agree that you do.

phanto,

"It was a simple question really – why do you feel the need to hurt people on this forum? Of course if you answer it will be because you agree that you do."

The question is why do you stomp about on this forum posting supposition and demanding people answer your "questions"...and then when someone stands up to you, claim they are hurting people?

You're the one strutting around the forum putting the boot into a bullying victim...because he's gay.

I have no idea what your insecurities are, but the gusto with which you have constructed a paradigm with which to crucify that young man ....because he is gay...is quite telling.

Not to mention harassing Foxy because she refused to respond to your confected blather.

Do you often go about being deliberately antagonistic in your approach - and when you receive some flack for your efforts, resort to yelping..."Oh now you're being nasty"?

What do you suggest my approach should be, phanto?

Should I read that runner calls me perverted and say nothing? runner is always calling me perverted. runner calls anyone perverted with whom he disagrees.

Should I sit back and allow him to call me a supporter of perversion for fear of "hurting "him"?

You called me a voyeur a few post back who needs to smirk at other people's fixations...butting into an exchange I was having with the delightful runner.

"And you ever the voyeur needing to smirk to the group about other people's fixations"

You get as good as you give from me on this forum...so stop being a sook.

Hi Poirot, could not agree more. It was clear very early on in this tread that phanto, hi phanto, was being motivated by his homophobia, and not some sense of outrage that the government was being wronged by this kids legal action. Although that was the veneer he used to justify his homophobic paranoia. Possibly phanto is a "poofter basher" from way back.
On the eve of the 'Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras' in Sydney we can reflect on how much (some in) society have shifted in their acceptance of the rights of gay people, we even had a police apology of a sorts from Superintendent Tony Crandell from the Surry Hills Local Area Command for the vicious police bashing of 53 people who took part in the first mardi gras parade in 1978, the 78'ers as they have become to be known. Openly gay Liberal member Bruce Notley-Smith made a formal apology on behalf of the NSW Government.
Unfortunately, there are still many bigoted people in society who do not respect gay people for who they are, the right wing yobbos, the religious nutters, this forum is a microcosm of Australian society to some extent. Although it has attracted a disproportionate number of well aged right wing crazies, they know who they are, no need to name them.

Paul1405:

I think you may be getting your threads mixed up. In this thread I have tried to point out the discrimination in the Safe Schools Program which creates special programs for kids with sexual issues. In the other thread I was talking about the manipulation of the kid who is taking the education department to court. One of his tools is to dramatise what has happened to him and I simply compared it to much bigger issues to put his drama queen antics in perspective.

This is not just an issue of some kid being bullied and that we should feel sorry for him. He himself has made it much bigger than that by going public in the media and then trying to manipulate public opinion into feeling sorry for him.

There is absolutely no need to go to the media. Other people take the education department to court for failures to do their job. They do not go to the media and try to manipulate public opinion in their favour. If he has a reasonable and logical argument for his legal action then the place to present it is in court. If it is justice that he really seeks then that is all he has to do.

But it is not only justice he seeks but attention. If he wants to get the media on his side then it should be enough to tell them that he has been bullied and that the school did not respond appropriately. No one needs to know why he was bullied – just the fact that he was bullied. All bullying in school is outlawed – it does not matter why the person is bullied.

cont.

cont.

Even though it adds nothing to his case he tells us he was bullied because he is homosexual. He gives examples of the type of behaviour he was subject to and none of these incidents indicate he was bullied because of his sexuality. Even being called a faggot is no proof as to the motivation of the bullies since the same term is used in relation to heterosexual people in order to upset them.

He did not need to tell us he was homosexual at all – it is totally irrelevant to his case. He is trying to gain sympathy by aligning himself with the victimhood which is displayed by many homosexuals who also seek to manipulate society.

The only person to whom his sexuality is at all relevant is you and others on the forum who mention it. Why do you need to bring it up at all? The issue is whether or not he has been bullied and whether the school has been negligent. It is totally irrelevant what his sexuality is but it seems that justice does not matter to you. It seems that all you are interested in is making this into another story of a poor downtrodden homosexual person. What has all that stuff about the police apology got to do with the manipulation of a kid who was bullied? Society might have come a long way in protecting the rights of homosexual people but many homosexual people have a very long way to go in protecting the rights of society’s justice system

".....Society might have come a long way in protecting the rights of homosexual people but many homosexual people have a very long way to go in protecting the rights of society’s justice system."

Jeepers, Paul...looks like we got it wrong. phanto hasn't spent two threads inventing scenarios and denigrating a bullied gay youngster - his entire crusade against this young man is in order to protect "society's justice system".

phanto has been so busy trying to assure us that his target gay person and his accompanying complaint against the school are, in fact, not the crux of the matter at all.

phanto's very real concerns are for all the other people bullied who aren't gay....it's outright "discrimination"! Why should the gay kid get all the publicity?

phanto has completed several backward somersaults with pike to assure as that this young man "probably" wasn't bullied because he was gay - and further - has suggested that the gay kid is perhaps the bully himself.

What phanto doesn't see is how transparent his attack on this young man is.

phanto. point taken, but I am sure you are just as homophobic on this tread as you are on the 'bully' thread. Just a minor point, how are you so sure the kid went to the media, and not the media went to the kid. Most self respecting news outlets have a court reporter or two to sniff out news worth articles.

Yes Piorot, I scored phanto a perfect zero for his several backward somersaults with pike. Next thing phanto will be telling us its all a beat up! The gay kid caused it all by continually bashing his face against the big kids fist! phanto has that on good authority, his own, its all in the article, if you read between the lines.

JUst like Rudd's apology to Indigeneous has done absolutely nothing to reduce sexual abuse, dv and life expectancy so the celebration and promotion of anal sex via the Mardi Gra and national broadcasters and kids 'programs' will not reduce bullying, disease or suicide rates. It will have the opposite affect as many more are brainwashed by this nonsense.

It is obvious that the regressives hate free speach, revert to demonising anyone who disagrees and hate the fact that some are willing to scrutinise the filth of teaching and promoting to young boys and girls anal sex and other filthy practices. And they have the ignorance and arrogance to accuse others of being obsessed with sex when they have no answers.

Hi Paul/Piorot,

I'm sure that you have something positive to contribute to this discussion.

When you're ready ........

In the meantime, perhaps that young homosexual man should be lined up for a Gold Logie: his single example has contributed hugely to the entire 'Safe Schools for Pedophiles' program. Single-handed (well, apart from his friends at La Trobe, and in the Socialist Apologists for Fascism), he has persuaded the home-schooled left that only homosexual kids have ever, in the known history of the world, been bullied at school. It's a bit like Indigenous activists convincing naïve supporters that only Indigenous kids have ever, in history, been taken into care.

Perhaps Phanto's point related to the commonplace observation that pretty much all of us were bullied at school, and so what if this kid thought it was only because he was homosexual ? Was that an outrageous suggestion ? I recall in my first weeks at Wagga High School ('Vincit Qui Se Vincit'), having my bare arse rubbed in the detritus of a very dirty boys' urinal (i.e. the boy's very dirty urinal, not the urinal of very dirty boys). In the classroom, the teacher told me to go home and change. Already madly in love with a couple of the girls, I had to straggle noisomely past their desks, to the derision of most of the class. Halcyon days !

I look forward to your positive contributions if you ever have any :)

Joe

Paul1405:

“Just a minor point, how are you so sure the kid went to the media, and not the media went to the kid.”

What difference does it make? Do you think the story and the photograph were published against his or his mother’s or his lawyer’s will? The ABC would be in big trouble doing that.

What has my homophobia got to do with anything? I said that the kid’s sexuality is totally irrelevant to the case so what is the point of bringing up anything about my attitudes to his sexuality?

It is not about sexuality at all but you want it to be. You want him to join the company of the great homosexual victims of our time. You want to try and elicit sympathy for homosexuals by supporting such manipulative behaviour as has been shown by this kid and his supporters. He is just another example of the greatest evil known to man – criticism of homosexuality.

Why do you need to support such a cause? Are homosexuals so fragile that they have to manipulate the general population in order to get what they want? If what they want is reasonable then why can’t they be like everyone else and present a reasonable argument? The fact that they need to resort to manipulation just shows how unreasonable their arguments are.

They are no longer fighting for their rights which they already have. Now they are manipulating for things that they have no right to at all like restrictions on free speech and the right to criticise. Every time they cry victim they expose how manipulative, devious and dishonest they are because they already have everything they need.

I'd like to take this opportunity to Thank people
who took the time to contribute constructively
to this discussion.
For me the discussion has now run its course.
I look forward to the next one.

It will be interesting to see what the Review ordered
by our PM on the Safe Schools program comes up with.

See you on another discussion.

I learned a great deal from this one.

Enjoy your week-end.

I'm now going to go and watch the Sydney Mardi Gras.

Cheers.

<<'Safe Schools for Pedophiles' program>> Sorry Joe that particular program was run by Archy Pell in the 1970's in Ballarat, it might be still going in Catholic schools for all we know. The church is fighting a rear guard action to cover up as much as possible. I watched some of Archy Pell giving his "evidence" this week via TV Vatican to the RC. The mans a joke! No Gold Logie for Pell, too much insincere poor acting for my liking.
How about a word or two on the "Safe Sex for Priests in Catholic Schools Program".

What has my (phanto) homophobia got to do with anything? Nothing of course, it doesn't color your opinion against this homosexual kid one little bit.

Runner, Christ was gay, so get over it. The evidence is in your bible.

Paul1405,
"Christ was gay, so get over it. The evidence is in your bible".

This how you define gay: show sincere love for another man.
The Bible definition is for a man to have sex with another man.
The latter Christ never did because he adhered to the Essene principles of sexual abstinence. The Bible clearly outlaws such sexual behaviour, if you believe this then you are a deceitful fraud.

Hi Paul/Piorit,

Not having ever been a Christian, I couldn't possibly comment on whether Christ was a homosexual. Except to suggest that there isn't much evidence of it.

Yes, we should condemn unreservedly the vile practices of the men in power in the Catholic Church, probably all over the world, and for the last 1800 years. But I would have thought that that those perverts, Catholic priests and teachers, have all been secret Marxists all along ? I can't believe it ! Tell me it isn't so !

But thanks anyway,

Joe

phanto,

".... In the other thread I was talking about the manipulation of the kid who is taking the education department to court. One of his tools is to dramatise what has happened to him and I simply compared it to much bigger issues to put his drama queen antics in perspective.

This is not just an issue of some kid being bullied and that we should feel sorry for him. He himself has made it much bigger than that by going public in the media and then trying to manipulate public opinion into feeling sorry for him.

There is absolutely no need to go to the media. Other people take the education department to court for failures to do their job. They do not go to the media and try to manipulate public opinion in their favour. If he has a reasonable and logical argument for his legal action then the place to present it is in court. If it is justice that he really seeks then that is all he has to do."

Here's another case:

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/03/05/19/44/grieving-nsw-parents-call-for-bullying-to-become-criminal-offence-with-online-petition

"
'Get with the times': Grieving parents trying to make bullying a criminal offence call for NSW government to accept online petitions"

"A pair of grieving NSW parents have called on the government to get with the times and accept an online petition calling for bullying to be made a criminal offence, after the death of their teenage daughter.

More than 25,000 people have signed the petition, but the government has refused to accept it."

In this instance the girl's parents want a Premier to change the law. They have gone to the media to broadcast their message.

Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young gay person?

I look forward to your response.

"Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young gay person?"

What has his gayness got to do with anything? He was being bullied that is all anyone needs to know in order for him to get justice.

Come on, phanto....

I'll rephrase the question, shall I?

Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young person bullied at school whom you've been critiquing these last few days?

Some evidence of bullying happens on every sporting field as a form of intimidation of the opponent. It is a part of realizing the World is a place of conflict. Just enter a workplace under pressure to perform deadlines, the scenes are not all love and roses. It helps to identify ones values and friends. Otherwise we are forced to think the same as the least assertive person.

Poirot:

“Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young person bullied at school whom you've been critiquing these last few days?”

But you have already established that I demonised him for no other reason than that he was homosexual. I said he had no need to go to the media (which is hardly ‘demonising’) and that was one of my reasons for criticising him. The other reason was his manipulation. So why would I be interested in this other case?

If you say I was only motivated by homophobia then why would I be interested in a case where there was no homophobia to be had?

Either my motivation was homophobia or it was to point out the unnecessary course of action of going to the media. You cannot have it both ways.

phanto,

"If you say I was only motivated by homophobia then why would I be interested in a case where there was no homophobia to be had?"

Precisely!

Which would explain why your zig-zagging all over the place at to avoid the crux of my point at present.

"Either my motivation was homophobia or it was to point out the unnecessary course of action of going to the media. You cannot have it both ways."

My contention is that your motivation was homophobia.

You have strenuously denied that.

If that's the case, why aren't you criticising the parents in my posted article for "going to the media"?

Poirot:

“My contention is that your motivation was homophobia”

Well why would I be interested in this other case?

It is not about what I say but about what you believe to be true. If you believe it to be true that my motivation was homophobia then what does it matter what I say it is because if I say my motivation is something other than homophobia you do not accept it – as far as you are concerned I am lying.

So if I am lying about my motivation why would you want to know the answer to a hypothetical question? You are saying “given that your motivation in the first case was to point out the wrong of going to the media will you also act according to the same motivation in the second case” Your question is based on the premise that my true motivation was to point out the wrong of going to the media and yet you truly believe that my motivation was homophobia. So which of the truths are you adhering to?

I don’t see the point in contriving a hypothetical question. I cannot have two opposing motivations at the same time so one of them must be true and the other false.

Imagine a male stripping naked, claiming to be female walks into the same toilet where Penny Wong goes. I am sure she is going say hello steve, I mean Eve. Yep young girls will be raped all so about 0.0001 per cent will feel comfortable. Obviously like homosexuality that number will increase as public money to brainwash and promote increases.

Excellent, phanto!

You've surpassed my wildest expectations with your latest garbled excercise in prevarication.

I rest my case.

.....

runner,

"Imagine a male stripping naked, claiming to be female walks into the same toilet where Penny Wong goes. I am sure she is going say hello steve, I mean Eve. Yep young girls will be raped all so about 0.0001 per cent will feel comfortable..."

Take my advice and get your head out of the sewer.

Hi All,

Runner, you are perverted like your religion.

phanto, you never actually established the kid went to the media, and not the media went to the kid, which is more likely after his lawyer lodged court papers.

Josephus, your statement may be fact, bullies in sport, workplace etc, but that does not make it right, or acceptable. Taking a Neanderthal approach to this type of violence, and saying well we just have to live with it, is also unacceptable,

Poirot, your article is strikingly similar to the story of a young female school friend of my youngest son, who committed suicide about 15 years ago at age 14. That girl was also bullied at school, which led to depression and drugs, and finally death.

Gay friends of ours (men in their 50's) tell of the hell that was their school lives through bullying because of their sexuality. The thing was, there was absolutely nothing they could do about it at the time. There were no mechanisms to protect them from the constant harassment and misery. Now that people are fighting back in an appropriate way we still have the homophobs like phanto and others who are content with gay people getting what they deserve in their opinion

Paul1405,
I can tell you it is not the genuine religious boys that is basking gays, it is the bully street boys who never go near a Church.

Paul you mentioned that word "sex", remember it is getting your mind into the sewer as Poirot believes. To talk about gender is a dirty word in a gender-less society.

Josephus, you are probably right, although I have met a number of bigoted religious people who simply view homosexuality as evil, and therefore homosexuals and others as evil.
I believe the way George Pell conducted himself at the RC this week is a far bigger issue. For Pell to say "It was a sad story and not of much interest to me." Later Pell tried to justify this as having come out wrong, when it actually typifies Pell's and the Catnolic Churches general attitude to pedophilia within. Yet society allows this organisation to continue to have control of children through the education system.

Poirot:

“I rest my case”

Well just rest it then. There is no need to tell anyone unless of course you are not sure and you are trying to convince yourself.

Paul1405:

“you never actually established the kid went to the media, and not the media went to the kid”

No I didn’t because it doesn’t matter - either way he has to agree to his story being told and his photo published so the end result is exactly the same – he chose to make his story and photo available. Why do you think it matters?

“way we still have the homophobs like phanto and others”

You seem rather obsessed with my homophobia as if you are actually afraid of any homophobia at all. Homophobia is simply a feeling. It is neither good nor bad. Feelings are nothing to be afraid of. Homophobia is just a physical feeling which takes place in someone else’s body. The dictionary says it is a fear, intense dislike or revulsion of homosexuality. So how can it hurt anyone else?

It might make homophobic people go out and assault homosexuals but that becomes an issue of assault not homophobia. You cannot be charged with homophobia but you can be charged with assault and so you should be. Why focus on the feeling that led to the assault? If you are sexually aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman and then go and rape her then the focus is very rightly on the rape and not your sexual feelings.

So like it or not many people feel revulsion towards homosexuality and every human being has a right to respond to the reactions in their own body so long as those reactions do not impinge on the rights of anyone else.

Focusing on the feeling itself rather than the action it leads to shows an unhealthy pre-occupation with the physiology of human nature as if one were not sure about their own feelings in general.

yep again Poirot and Paul deliberately remain wilfully ignorant about sexualising kids. Yep demonise those who don't accept their very perverted narrative. No wonder we have 5 and 6 year olds now molesting other kids. Thanks regressives. If opposing that is perverted in the regressives eyes so be it. Just stop being dumb enough to ask why bullying and sexual assualt is increasing.

One would have thought that one of the most evil consequences of the sexual abuse by Catholic and C. of E. priests and teachers would have been the likelihood that those poor children themselves became abusers, that they were sexualised and then imposed that perverted sexual behaviour on other children.

So in the light of all that, I'm sure that, governments being usually fairly sensible, they have built in all manner of safeguards into this "Safe Schools" program, to ensure that children are not sexualised, that such perverted behaviour is not in any way encouraged.

How they may be doing that, in an age of easy access to the internet, is not clear to me but I have some confidence that no government would ever want a repeat, through their incompetence, of the ghastly misuse of power which many churches have hitherto put in the hands of some of their members.

And which is now, with the "Safe Schools" program, largely in the hands of teachers, whether they like it or not.

Joe

Joe, are teacher equal to priests in the life of a child, and are teachers free from sexualizing or grooming children from their own ends?

“no government would ever want a repeat, through their incompetence, of the ghastly misuse of power which many churches have hitherto put in the hands of some of their members”

Joe, I can see what you are getting at but if we are to rid society of the curse of child sexual abuse in the church then we have to make sure parents take a lot of the blame. It is parents who make the decision to send their kids to church schools or who put them in a position where they could be abused by priests. No one forces them to be religious but they can surely force their kids to be religious and in doing so they are responsible for putting them into a dangerous position. The paedophiles are responsible for their behaviour but they could not have got away with such behaviour if parents had not sent their kids to churches and church schools in the first place. Many parents of abused kids know this but try to shift the blame for their part in such soul-destroying events.

A lot of adults who were sent to church schools do not want to open up that ‘can of worms’ because sexual abuse was not the only form of abuse that was metered out by the clergy and many of those adults want to ask their parents ‘why did you send me to that place? The anger becomes a little too close for comfort so it is easier to just join the chorus of church-shaming even if you were not on the receiving end of sexual abuse. Sometimes the outrage is meant for someone a bit closer.

The government is not responsible or ‘incompetent’ because there is nothing they could have done to stop parents from ‘religionising’ their kids. Any parent who does that to their kid must accept the responsibility for any outcomes that occur because the parents do not have to be religious.

Hi Josephus,

No, I don't think so, considering the influence teachers have on children. With the internet, they may have a double duty - and a double influence - on how they introduce children in their care to issues of sexuality. I'm not sure how asking children, long before they can think in formal-operational terms, how they would react if they had no genitals, or the 'other' set of genitals, would clarify their own 'nature' or their potential relationships with other people, male, female, and everything in between, who they may encounter later in life.

Hi Phanto,

I agree, many religious people put enormous faith in the integrity of key carers. I suppose that faith has taken a bit of a flogging.

As well, modern means of communication put extra burdens on parents, religious or not, to be vigilant to ensure that their children are not utterly confused, corrupted or otherwise bamboozled about - to the children - what may be crucial issues in their necessarily self-absorbed lives, and that a minority of carers are not able to exploit their uncertainties to their own perverted ends.

Cheers,

Joe

The State has a very poor record itself where abuses of children are concerned.

The ONLY protections are:

- freedom of speech (but staff are easily gagged and the 'clients' are powerless);

- a program of regular, random, COMPREHENSIVE audits (but CEOs and political parties are less than welcoming and proactive where audits are concerned); and

- the audit program to be based on a professionally conducted, comprehensive risk assessment.

"child sexual abuse in the church then we have to make sure parents take a lot of the blame" What a load of rubbish phanto. Those who knew that abuse was taking place, there is a very serious question mark over the head of George Pell for one, as to what he knew, or should have known, along with the abusers and the organisation itself for failing in its duty of care are responsible. Parents are no more reasonable than to the extent they knew the abuse was taking place, and failed to act. It is fair to say when children were sent to church or school it was to receive religious instruction or education, not sexual abuse.
You could extend you logic to say, catching a taxi, if you are attacked in someway by the driver without cause then you are some what responsible for catching the taxi in the first place.

In the Catholic Church many priests and brothers were uncovered as pedophiles, and when thing got too hot, the church hierarchy simply moved them on to new fertile ground. The motivation was to protect the "good" name of the church. The church also had no mechanism in place, other than reporting the matter to police, which they failed to do, to deal with the problem.

It is a shame it has all been politicised.

The public would be aware of the cynicism of politicians and the commentariat with their secondary political agendas, who are making political capital out of the victims.

By way of example, from the papers,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-03/top-private-school-xavier-college-admits-extent-of-sex-abuse/6439942

<Xavier College, top Melbourne private school, admits extent of historical child sex abuse
By Jessica Longbottom

The principal at one of Melbourne's top private schools has, for the first time, admitted the extent of child sex abuse that took place on college grounds.

Nine Xavier College students were sexually abused at the school in the 1960s and 70s, according to principal Chris Hayes...>.

Any federal parliamentarians, journalists and members of the commentariat who are old boys, parents too and may even have attended that school around that time?

-They might be saying that they 'never knew' and never heard any complaints and there was no smoke.

Otherwise they might have some explaining to do.

“failing in its duty of care”

Who gives out these duties? Is there some authority that says you have a duty to care for these kids? No there is not. The only ones who can give others the responsibility of caring for their children are parents. It is a responsibility that is given and not a duty. Individuals in the church may have failed in their responsibility but the church has not failed their duty of care since they do not have one to begin with because there is no one above them to give it to them.

The question is for parents – why did they give such a responsibility to members of the church? Parents have to take responsibility just like they would if the babysitter turned out to be a child sex abuser. It is no good saying after the event that they did not know the babysitter would abuse their children. It was their choice and they have to take responsibilities for their choices.

“It is fair to say when children were sent to church or school it was to receive religious instruction or education, not sexual abuse.”

It is fair to say also that they only wanted the babysitter to babysit and not abuse – it is still their choice. They chose wrongly when they chose to send their kids to a church school. They have to send them to school but they do not have to send them to a church school.

“You could extend you logic to say, catching a taxi, if you are attacked in someway by the driver without cause then you are some what responsible for catching the taxi in the first place.”

Well of course you are because where there is choice you have to take responsibility for your choices. Every adult has to take responsibility for every choice they make in life. Some turn out to be bad choices. There is a choice for parents between state schools and church ones.

phanto,

Your musings are becoming weirder and weirder.

What do we make of statements like these?:

"...It is parents who make the decision to send their kids to church schools or who put them in a position where they could be abused by priests. No one forces them to be religious but they can surely force their kids to be religious and in doing so they are responsible for putting them into a dangerous position. The paedophiles are responsible for their behaviour but they could not have got away with such behaviour if parents had not sent their kids to churches and church schools in the first place. Many parents of abused kids know this but try to shift the blame for their part in such soul-destroying events."

"The government is not responsible or ‘incompetent’ because there is nothing they could have done to stop parents from ‘religionising’ their kids. Any parent who does that to their kid must accept the responsibility for any outcomes that occur because the parents do not have to be religious."

"Individuals in the church may have failed in their responsibility but the church has not failed their duty of care since they do not have one to begin with because there is no one above them to give it to them."

Etc,

Of course, what you say is complete and utter bollocks. If the advertising hoardings outside religious schools advertised sexual abuse as part of the curriculum, then your inane proposition might hold water.

What sort of odd mentality states that it's the parent's fault because some deviant was lurking in an institution and targeted their child?

There are tens of thousands of children attending religious schools in this country right now - schools partially funded by state and federal govts....you appear to be saying that the parents of these children are knowingly putting these kids in danger.

And of course schools have a duty of care. It's law in this country for children to be educated - most in schools. Claiming their is no duty of care for educational institutions is pure rubbish.

Transgender regrets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It_fDOCuT2g&feature=em-subs_digest