"Safe Schools Coalition coordinator Roz Ward was forced yesterday to quit her advisory role with the Victorian government and faces a university ­investigation over a Facebook post where she ­labelled the Australian flag “racist” and called for it to be replaced with a socialist red ­ensign."

The safe schools agenda, always more about extremist LGBT ideology than anti-bullying, has been clearly exposed as such and should be radically redesigned.

Obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is a perverted course designed to sexualize children. Turnbull is either naïve or gutless in allowing these deviants brainwash kids.

Dear Shadow Minister,

From my understanding and according to newspaper articles in the
media - such as The Age:

The Safe Schools program is not about any one person.

It's about promoting safe and inclusive environments for
all. However, it has been regularly embroiled in controversy
with attacks from certain conservative MPs and Christian groups
some of which have accused the program of promoting totally
weird objectives (such as sexual experimentation, and cross-dressing).

I am rather surprised that you are taking
part in spreading this misinformation.

The Victorian Gender and Equality Commissioner stated:

"Ms Ward has acknowledged that her post (in Facebook) was inappropriate
and may have caused offence, even if it was meant in jest and posted in
private."

I agree, it was not a well-thought action on her part - but to blame
an entire program for the private actions of one person does not
seem to be a well thought out or fair action either.

No, I'm not going to let this one go.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say we are all being managed, and the exact same thing I was talking about Foxy, when I commented last week about these things being Trojan horses and not what they seem to be.
And about do-gooders being fooled into thinking things are inherently good when they are not, and dragging us all to hell.

I mean really take a look at this article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-quits-vic-government-role-over-post/news-story/7d6ed86a28b714754f30a625780f2832

Is this the type of man-hating left wing nutcase you want deciding whats good and what isn't good for your kids?
And most of you stuck up for it.

You're all too scared that someone might label you sexist or a bigot.
Brainwashed slaves of the system.
And now we find out her real ideology is to push socialism on the country.
Which was pretty much what I warned you all about on the George Soros thread.

Look here.
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/i-thought-i-was-a-virgin-i-wasnt-this-is-why-we-need-safe-schools-20160331-gnusnq.html
Theses are the people who benefit from safe schools.
The adopted and indoctrinated children of said man-hating lesbians.

I believe in basic equality but I won't buy into insanity, which is kind of ironic since some people here wish to discredit me as a 'conspiracy theorist', and no less than a week later said evidence drops right in your laps but I'm the crazy one?

The writing on the wall, take a look at yourselves.
Who's crazy now hey?

Foxy,

As you know I am an atheist, not only that but I am a strong advocate for sex ed in school and a fierce anti bullying advocate. However, the problem with the safe schools programme is that under the banner of anti bullying goes far further.

If the safe schools program actually becomes about safe schools I will support it, presently it isn't and I don't.

So Shadow Minister, are you ok with bullying of gay or transgender students in schools or not? If you are not condoning bullying of these students then you should support the Safe Schools initiative, because that is what it is all about.

Just because one mad communist woman makes a stupid comment -about launching a red flag atop Parliament House, on Facebook, doesn't mean the whole safe schools program should be dropped.

The Australian goes on to say:
"The government’s Gender and Equality Commissioner, Rowena Allen, said it was inappropriate.
“Ms Ward has acknowledged that the post was inappropriate and may have caused offence, even if meant in jest, and posted in private,” Ms Allen said.
“The Safe Schools program is not about any one person, it’s about providing safe and inclusive environments for all LGBTI kids at school. The Victorian government remains proud in its support of the Safe Schools program, and this will in no way affect the running of the program.”"

Fair enough too.

I only wonder whether, and if so for how longer, it is still safe for a school-child to be either heterosexual or non-sexual. LGBTI has now become the norm, so those who do not belong to that community could find themselves in danger.

ALL bullying should be uprooted with zero tolerance.

Suze,

Only the most simple minded would present this as an all or nothing approach. There is no way that you could read my previous posts and believe that I oppose anti bullying programs, and it should be clear to most that the opposition to safe schools is not its LGBT anti bullying agenda.

At high school my best friend was as black as the ace of spades. I never strived to "understand" his perspective as a black man, his colour was simply never an issue. Similarly, we have gay friends, religious friends, and even one that is a passionate stamp collector. I understand little about their passions, and again to me they are irrelevant.

The keys to any anti bullying program is the promotion of tolerance and the acceptance and cooperation by the parents. While the safe schools program contains anti bullying material, there is no doubt that it also contains a lot that goes way beyond any requirements for teaching tolerance and is wildly inappropriate for adolescents. The effort spent trying to get the 97% of straight children to "experience" gender fluidity has little to nothing to do with anti bullying and is guaranteed to generate outrage amongst a large number of parents without whom the program is doomed.

Good to see that perverted nut cases can still be sent packing in this increasingly backward country, where queer is becoming the norm.

I received a copy of a 'facebook' post by a professor who contributed to the Safe schools program that he stated that sex with children should be normalised. I will bring up his name if I can retrace it.

Dear Josephus,

To blame an entire program for the private opinions of
one person is not a well thought out or a fair action.

As stated earlier, the Safe Schools program is not about
any one person. It's about promoting safe and
inclusive environments for all children.

Josephus, Foxy.
The article in question, I too saw it on Facebook:http://unsafeschools.org/the-australian-safe-schools-program-la-trobe-university/
The gender studies department at La Trobe university has no more business being in state schools than right wing Christians or any other openly chauvinistic group.
So no Foxy, Safe Schools in the words of it's creators was never about bullying, that interpretation of the program was spin from their sympathisers in mainstream politics and the education bureaucracy.
I'll tell you what I tell my two daughters: "The LGBTI advocates are thugs, we'll try to have you excused from any classes or seminars but if they come to your school just be polite and go along with it. Don't blame the mixed up kids from the school's Gay pride club, don't even speak to them unless absolutely necessary because they're being trained by these Communists to lay traps and act as provocateurs of "Homophobic" incidents by their parents, the Lesbian head mistress and LGBTIQ-Communist activists.
Be aware also that the good teachers and vice principals are forced to go along with this nonsense and forced to repeat the lies on pain of losing their job, don't make trouble for teachers you like, just say "I understand" and do the work."

Foxy: I am rather surprised that you are taking part in spreading this misinformation.

I dispute the "Misinformation" tag. The "Safe Schools" was clearly an LTGB program in the guise of promoting safe and inclusive environments for all. They're a sneaky lot these LTGBers & the Politically Correct & Do-Gooders fall for it every time. Sorry Foxy, but, sadly you caring people do.

SOL:So Shadow Minister, are you ok with bullying of gay or transgender students in schools or not?

Bullying should be about Bullying not about Sexual orientation. However the "Safe Schools Program" places more emphasis on teaching & converting children to be LTGB, there-in lies the problem.

Foxy: To blame an entire program for the private opinions of one person is not a well thought out or a fair action.

There-is another problem. The promoters of this Program are all "one" persons, & all of the same mind.

Dear Jayb,

The Safe Schools program is a National Safe Schools Framework.
The Australian Government collaborates with state and
territory governments to support the Framework as part of a
national approach to make sure our school communities are
safe and supportive. This program was endorsed by all Ministers
for Education in December 2010. Membership is voluntary and all
services and resources are provided free.

Perhaps prior to posting you need to do a bit more research -
such as Googling the National Safe Schools Framework - and
their Guiding Principles.

Dear Foxy, People like Roz Ward the Safe Schools Coalition coordinator & her ilk are all over the place. If you disagree with their GLTB & Feminist views then you & the Ministers are made out to be anti just about everything. Now no Minister wants to be made look like a fool by the GLTB, Left wing Politically Correct Do-Gooders so they tentatively go along for the ride & give in to these types of Programmes. The Media love that sort of thing & the last thing a Minister is to look bad in print.

Are you saying that this Programme is not chock-a-block full of pro GLTB propaganda hell bent on gaining recruits for the GLTB's?

Dear Jayb,

What propaganda are you talking about?

As stated earlier - it is a voluntary program and it is
up to the Principal of any given school to apply for
the services and resources if they feel that their
school would benefit from the program.

Every student is entitled to feel save at their school.
So far as I can gather this program is working very well.

Foxy,
That is why some parents have removed their children from the schools that have the program. It is a propaganda tool of the LGBT as they are the sexual focus group and it does not teach respect for all persons. Teachers are being bullied by male students, and Asperger students are being bullied.

La Trobe University Professor Gary Dowsett and a founder of the Safe Schools Project says, Peadophillia should be recognised as part of the gay movement, and must be legally recognised as a wider sexual liberation.

These are the ones writing the program for schools.

Foxy,

We all know that the intentions of those setting up the program were to create an anti bullying program that would help LGBT students. However, I struggle to believe that the results are what they intended.

When this first came to national attention, I visited the website and followed some of the links to the sites made available to school children, and found more than a few that were wildly inappropriate that would have got me fired if I viewed them at work.

It is clear that the safe schools program got hijacked, but with some trimming out of the offensive material it will be able to fulfil the purpose it was intended for.

Dear Josephus,

Thanks! You just gave me a great idea:

If I portray the act of riding a bicycle as sexual, well with some imagination it is, then I can join the wave of the wider sexual liberation to successfully legalise riding a bike without wearing a condom-equivalent over one's head!

It seems that the letter 'B' is already taken - but what about 'R' for "Rider"? I better hurry to register it before it's taken by the Rat-lovers.

How did I fail to think of this earlier?!

Dear Josephus,

Downsett is not involved with the program.
He's involved with prostrate cancer in men.
You need to do more research. As for the far-right
conservative MP George Christenson who made the
accusations against Prof. Downsett - well he did
not have his facts right either. Christensen was
very disappointed when a government review of the
program found no changes had to be made. The review
gave it a full OK.
And it is a very successful program around the country.

The following link explains the support the program has
received and the list of some of the people supporting
the program:

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org.au/uploads/c6b7f8dd9a24da1dad7b00c590faa0e8.pdf

Dear Shadow Minister,

I certainly hope that you're right and that the program
will continue successfully for what it was originally designed.

Foxy: What propaganda are you talking about?

The fact that the Program promotes the GLTB's as preferred lifestyle. The Websites they refer children to are, as pointed out by others, purely in support of & promote a GLBT lifestyle as a preferred Lifestyle. The Bullying of others, other than GLTB takes second place to what the GLTB are really pushing.

Dear Jayb,

I haven't been able to find any such promotions of
life-styles. Could you supply at least one to substantiate
your claims.

Thank You.

Foxy,
If you think these sexual weirdos are the same as the rest of us you are far more morally corrupted that I first thought.
Perhaps you should get out there and join their deviate culture, or have you already?

Dear Chris,

I don't quite know what you mean by "corrupted?"
I've tried to follow the "golden rule,"
all of my life (treat others as you'd like to
be treated) and pass it onto my children as well.
Anyway, I believe in following my conscience -
and not be deliberately mean to anybody.
I'm happily married with two sons, and four grand=children.

I don't know what else you'd like to know. Or why you
want to know these things.

1. This isn't a program to stop bullying of people who identify as LGTB.
2. It's a program to promote LGTB lifestyle under the cover of bullying.

I think that the promoters of this program (LGBT's) see these two items above as being the same thing, whereas reasonable people will see them as 2 totally different things.
Maybe herein lies our problem.
Maybe the gay promoters of this program believe that by promoting a LGBT lifestyle that this will lead to less bullying.

(It's actually kind of stupid anyway and they are playing parents for idiots. Kids will make fun of others and bully others at school. Its part of our nature and DNA to find others who we relate to and cast out those who don't belong. Its human nature and a part of growing up and no anti-bullying campaign will ever change it)

But in reality everyone is being played for fools.
This is just one part of a much bigger plan to attack our identity.
Our personal identity and our national identity.
We're a whole lot more easily pushed around by stupid propaganda when were all so confused about the world and arguing over which toilets were supposed to use.

Where do you think all these outside organsisations came from?
That's not the Australia I grew up in.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cronulla-protests-what-is-the-antifascist-group-antifa-20151212-glm2vd.html

Our country is under attack by foreign groups.
Its all part of a push for global government.
They cant build a 'new' without destroying the 'old' and then posing as saviors to take away our rights in a trade for 'security'.

We're all being managed.

Thank you Armchair Critic
quote
1. This isn't a program to stop bullying of people who identify as LGTB.
2. It's a program to promote LGTB lifestyle under the cover of bullying.
unquote
Maybe you can understand this Foxy
I fought three wars to protect the way of life we had certainly not to promote aberrant irreligious and deviate behavior being taught in our schools.
Sure you can expect certain types of brainwashing from communist unions like the teachers union and the PSA but leave she sex out of it.

Foxy: I haven't been able to find any such promotions of life-styles.

There are no so blind than those who refuse to see. Put your glasses on, then read it.

I have posted this elsewhere a report from CNN:
CNS News reports, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and former psychiatrist–in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, who has studied transgendered people for 40 years, said it is a scientific fact that “transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men.
All such people, he explained in an article for The Witherspoon Institute, “become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’”
Dr. McHugh, who was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 26 years, the medical institute that had initially pioneered sex-change surgery – and later ceased the practice – stressed that the cultural meme, or idea that “one’s sex is fluid and a matter of choice” is extremely damaging, especially to young people.

The PC brigade are irate about his announcement

Gentlemen,

I get the distinct feeling that unless I agree
with you guys - nothing productive will be achieved
in my participation in this discussion.

For that reason, I shall leave you to continue this
discussion amongst yourselves.

"What propaganda?"

That was covered very well in a previous OLO article by Pat Byrne and the discussion that ensued,

"Safer schools or a radical Marxist sexual revolution?"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18033

The cherry on the cake is the admission by the head of Safe schools:

"Ms Ward, who did not respond to requests to comment yesterday, has previously admitted that the program was about gender and sexual diversity, rather than preventing bullying, and has spoken at public events about Safe Schools being part of a strategy to change society."

Now Foxy, Suze etc, is the problem that I have with the program.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As stated earlier by myself and Suse - one extremist does not
make the program. Hopefully you'll see that eventually.
At least you still have an open-mind.

The following link explained things quite early in the piece,
and continued with the discussions that followed on various
pages, and on page 4 especially it listed the reputable
educators (over 300 of them) who support the program:

http://www.forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7315&page4.

Foxy: As stated earlier by myself and Suse - one extremist does not
make the program.

Foxy just in case you missed it or chose to ignore it here it is again.

The "Promoters" of this Program are all "one persons," & all of those One persons are all of the same mind. Push the GLTB agenda onto the Children. Turn the Children to the Dark Side.

Why does a program whose stated aim is to minimise bullying at school need to talk about minority sexualities at all?

If you teach that bullying is not acceptable because everyone should be respected then why do you need to single out any particular type of person? How does information about people with minority sexualities help re-enforce the argument that all bullying is wrong? Students know what the meaning of the word ‘all’ is. It should be enough to present an argument that says bullying per se is wrong. That is all you need to do if your aim is to stop bullying.

You might want to use examples to illustrate your argument but why would you use an example that presents information to children who may not be ready to deal with that information. Information about minority sexualities or indeed any information about sex should come from parents whose job it is to determine the appropriate time for their child to receive such information. It is not the school’s decision to make.

You can make an argument against bullying and find other examples which do not tread on the rights of parents to take control of their child’s sex education. Why would anyone really have a problem with that unless they are trying to achieve some other outcome than prevention of bullying?

It is fairly obvious that using examples which include sexual information has another agenda altogether

I'd like to share a video interview, and its sort of off topic.
Most of you won't bother to watch it and that's ok, it is quite a long interview.
A forum member recently called me a conspiracy theorist which is fine, I've referred to myself as that a few times, the only point I want to make is that I don't want to be confused with the type that go on about faked moon landings and flat earth theories.. That's not me.

Where this video does relate to the topic is where (if you take the time to watch it) you'll get a feel for how certain social agendas are backed by the elite and are not what they seem to be which is something I've spoken about several times on topics involving social agendas.

For those who do take the time to watch it, I hope this gives you a better understanding of why I take a very cautious approach to them.

The interview is with Aaron Russo, producer of Trading Places and Wise Guys and who died of cancer in 2007.
This may have been his final interview.

http://youtu.be/N3NA17CCboA

It was enlightening to watch it again and I'm glad I did.
I wanted to share it with others so that they could better understand my point of view (on many topics) and what's really happening in the world.

Whilst some of you may not be interested in this kind of thing, I just want to say that its actually an interesting interview in its own right and I hope that some of you can find the time to watch it.

these deviants are the same who call Trump an extremist. He is mild compared with the water melon child groomers.

//I wanted to share it with others so that they could better understand my point of view (on many topics) and what's really happening in the world.//

ROFLMAO. All this video helps me understand is that you are possibly the most gullible man alive. Do you just believe everything you see in youtube videos and never stop to wonder if it might be a load of crap?

I like this page's summary of your video: "A dying libertarian movie producer claims to have uncovered the secret to world domination from some random guy with an important last name."

http://tinyurl.com/zw4pgbp

But never mind the rational explanation. Here's a crazy looking dude to explain it to you in a way you might find more relatable:

http://tinyurl.com/h362wy6

See? The Aaron Russo video was done too discredit the 9/11 truthers as a bunch of crazy people - the video itself is a conspiracy! Or not. Still, it's a tad more plausible than Russo's claims even if it is outside the bounds of credibility.

But crazy beard man's first point, that it was made up to sell DVDs, is a rational explanation which relies on far fewer ad hoc assumptions than the 'Russo is telling the truth' explanation. Applying Ockham's razor, the DVD theory is clearly the more reasonable explanation (unless you're a nutty conspiracy theorist who prefers their explanations convoluted and based on implausible assumptions). So there's your conspiracy right there, AC: a nefarious plot to sell DVDs to anyone silly enough to buy them. Caveat emptor.

Now here's David Mitchell & Robert Webb revealing the truth about some real conspiracy theories for your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/oyx5vfq

Foxy,

It's not just one extremist. The issue is with the material, and Roz Ward as head of the program had a lot to do with putting the material together, and has clearly admitted that much of the material has nothing to do with anti bullying.

I see Roz Ward is now under pressure to resign from the program entirely.

The public would be wondering about the claimed Codes of Conduct covering ethics and values that are supposed to be in place for public employment.

Frankly, if employees can influence and divert policy to serve political interests, in this case the toxic Marxism ideology that is detrimental and corrosive to the democracy we cherish, what trust should the public be placing in the supervision of staff and contractors to abide by those fundamental policies such as Privacy and confidentiality with the public's information? What about public money and assets? Who knows what unapproved and unpublished purposes they are being directed to.

During my years as a contractor I fortunately only had brief exposure to the public services, State and federal. But one of the lasting images I have is of everyone claiming to be a manager, "Oh, my role people management and no I don't know how that system etc works and no I am not an engineer etc".

That seems to be one of the problems where Ms Ward and unmentioned others are concerned, they were allowed free rein in an organisational culture where it is all care and no responsibility. -Inverted pyramids where everyone is a 'manager' and it is only the few very junior employees, usually demoted to casual or temporary status, do the work.

Worse, in public organisations driven by 'positive' affirmative action and other policies that interfere with recruitment and promotion by merit and scrutiny by Public Service Boards has been lost (they endure similar problems!), the public have lost any previous assurance that the public service will be independent, impartial and delivering fearless advice, and serving community benefit.

Of course Ros Ward should have been shown the door and long ago. It would be disgrace if she was the fall guy and the managers responsible escaped Scot free. What about the bigger issues, that the department itself needs independent review?

Well played Toni Lavis.
It appears you're correct and I have no leg to stand on...
And that means you get to gloat away while I'm left with this demoralised and blank look on my face. Lol
Even worse, I'm not going live this down now am I?
Laugh away, you earned it.

I actually haven't watched the video in 5 or 6 years and honestly hadn't read or heard those arguments before.
I don't usually fall for disinformation and I feel like I've been had. ..violated even.
I guess I shouldn't make excuses, it just makes it worse doesn't it?
...Talk about strapping on the tin-foil had and make a complete fool of myself.

Whilst I'm not conceding that you're right, I will agree that it certainly appears that you are and I have to admit I have no further arguments or explanations for it.

Looks like I really put my foot in it this time, I'll just sulk quietly now while thinking of all the future comments I'm going to have to endure...

"La Trobe University yesterday suspended Safe Schools co-founder Roz Ward, as a former ­member of Victoria’s gay and transgender advisory committee warned the program was untenable because it had been ­hijacked by radical gender theory.

The Australian revealed last week that Ms Ward had called for the “racist Australian flag” at state parliament to be replaced with a “red one”, prompting her to quit her advisory role with the Victorian government and sparking a university investigation.

That investigation resulted in the Marxist Ms Ward’s suspension yesterday for “undermining” public confidence in the program because she continued to push ideologies that were “unrelated”."

"....over a Facebook post where she ­labelled the Australian flag “racist” and called for it to be replaced with a socialist red ­ensign."

And for that, we have a thread header like this:

"Safe schools Roz ward, exposed as extremist, resigns"

Snort!...

P,

Not just one stupid post, but it was the last straw.

P.S what are you snorting?

SM,

Excuse my snort....

Loads of stuff gets up my nose when I come to OLO.

Come on poirot. The first thing you & your friends want to do the GLTB crowd is lop their heads off. Make up your mind. You either loath them or love them.

Any idea if the World is Round or Flat yet?

Jayb,

Oh...so "Mr make-it-up-as-he-goes-along" pops up on the thread.

Snort!....

I'll make it easy for ya poirot.

The first thing you & your friends want to do the GLTB crowd is lop their heads off. True or False

The World is Round. True or false.

SM,

"It's not just one extremist. The issue is with the material, and Roz Ward as head of the program had a lot to do with putting the material together, and has clearly admitted that much of the material has nothing to do with anti bullying."

I'm a bit in the dark here. Can you please post all the "material" linked directly to Safe Schools" that you're on about. The material to which you keep referring without showing it to us directly under the Safe Schools' banner.

And not to ignore the rabid "neo-Marxist" rants surrounding this issue....can I ask the same question as Jeff Sparrow?:

"Could Roz Ward keep her job if she liked the Australian flag a little?"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/02/could-roz-ward-keep-her-job-if-she-liked-the-australian-flag-a-little?CMP=share_btn_tw

"Kennett and Birmingham and the other offence-mongers have taken particular umbrage at Ward’s lack of enthusiasm for the Australian flag – a hanging offence, La Trobe seems to think. Perhaps, then, the university administrators might explain precisely the degree of nationalist fervour required to gain entry to its community of scholars. Would Ward have been OK had she liked the flag a little? Does she need to wear it like a cape?..."

"Yes, Ward is a socialist. So was John Curtin and George Orwell and Helen Keller and Albert Einstein and Oscar Wilde. Would Kennett and Birmingham and the others engaged in this neo-McCarthyite push have excluded all of them? Or if it’s only particular types of socialists that are verboten, perhaps La Trobe can spell out exactly which doctrinal heresies it would like to ban.

Birmingham’s probably right to suggest that most Australians don’t agree with Roz Ward about Australian nationalism. But so what? Is the minister really arguing that, unless you have popular opinions, you can’t be employed in education? A curious notion of academic freedom – is that what La Trobe thinks, too? Where precisely will it draw the line? What if you vote for the Greens? What if you belong to a religious minority? Is there a list somewhere explaining exactly which ideas are and are not fit to be espoused on the Bundoora campus?"

P,

I am not in the habit of doing your research.

No one takes seriously Jeff Sparrow's and your feeble attempt to trivialise the issue. If you want to find out why Roz Ward has been dumped, perhaps you should read the university's statement.

SM,

"I am not in the habit of doing your research."

Lol!...just as I thought,...nothing.

Always the same with you hot air spouters...keep mentioning "the material" - and when asked to produce it....zip, zilch.

Strange how you right-wing, freedom loving, characters are all for sacking someone because they have an opinion about the flag - posted in a private capacity.

"La Trobe University will be hit with legal action over its treatment of Safe Schools Coalition co-founder Roz Ward, who it suspended for calling the Australian flag "racist".

National Tertiary Education Union Victorian Secretary Colin Long said the union could launch legal action in the federal court as soon as Friday.

"We are determined to take all possible legal actions to defend Roz and get her back to work, and to defend the fundamental principle of free speech," he said."

"Maurice Blackburn employment lawyer Josh Bornstein said employers who disciplined or sacked an employee based on an expression of a political view could be in breach of the Fair Work Act."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyers-academics-condemn-la-trobe-universitys-suspension-of-safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-20160602-gp9nmz.html

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-attacks-on-safe-schools-founder-roz-ward-are-attacks-on-our-children-20160601-gp97ra.html

The author of the Gender Fairy has come out to supposedly support Roz Ward but it comes across more as an apology for her own behaviour than anything else.

Three times she refers to the Catholic Church when it is totally irrelevant to her argument as if she has some kind of grudge. This is hardly the arena to use in order to air your resentment about totally unrelated issues. There are many who criticise this program who have nothing to do with any church or with conservatism but just think that it is harmful to kids.

Why does she need to tell us her story and that of her child. Did she ask her child if it was ok for her private affairs to be broadcast in the national press? Why does this mother need to tell her story about how she dealt with the issue? It is like she is seeking some kind of acceptance for the way she has parented her child. There is nothing unique in her approach. Everyone knows that if your child presents with a medical or emotional issue that you seek out help from experts. Why does she need to tell us this unless she has some doubt about her own approach to the issue?

This article is not about the plight of Roz Ward and much more about the doubt of the author.

Personally Poirot I care zilch about her trashing of the flag. It is the perverse things that she has pushed on kids that makes her totally unsuitable for the role. Private philosophy obviously has effected public performance which is something regressives always deny even though it is obviously the case to anyone with half a brain. Turnbull should also be sacked for being such a wimp in allowing child grooming.

1. Nobody, no kid in school, should be bullied. Bullies should be beaten the sh!t out of behind the bike shed.

2. 'Heterosexual' is normal. Maybe everything else is as well, in the spirit that "When everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody." I really don't care.

3. As a post-Marxist, I strongly object to describing Roz Ward as 'Marxist'. 'Gramscian' maybe, 'Trotskyite' probably, as one of those who treat their dogmatic perception of ideology as an unquestionable religion, but the correlation between her views of, say, a proletarian revolution and Marx's would be zero.

4. I don't recall Marx ever suggesting that there was anything remotely progressive about homosexuality - I think he would be completely dumb-founded. He would probably muse that, after all, wasn't it a particular upper-class English perversion ?

5. As for the Flag, I would be happy if the Aboriginal Flag replaced the Union jack up there in the corner, at some time in the future. My lovely wife and I made hundreds from 1972 onwards, and sent them all over the world. I think that by that time we had abandoned the dream that a red flag - i.e. representing a proletarian revolution - would ever fly over Australia.

7. "John Curtin and George Orwell and Helen Keller and Albert Einstein and Oscar Wilde" is a pretty broad church, Poirot. Any particular branch that takes your fancy ?

6. I fervently wish that I could give a toss about LBGTIQ issues, any more than I worry about bettongs, thong design, the purple-arsed namby-pamby, or spitting on pavements.

Express your support for these brilliant ideas here:

So Poirot,

You produce the "material" all of it, not just the redacted version that appears on the safe schools web site. Please try and tell us that the pretending to be gay or gender neutral does not exist. Please tell us that all the gender fluidity classes are not aimed at yr 7s, but just remember that I have family members that are school teachers.

Poirot, put your hand on your heart and tell us that safe schools is only about bullying, if you can't then you are a hypocrite.

SM,

You are hilarious!

Link me to "the material" under the Safe Schools banner that concerns you.

it's a simple request

Is this bullying by a teacher?
A friend Gordon of mine said today.
"I had a 13-year-old child come to me who tells me he’s been told to go home and find a picture of a male celebrity on the internet and explain to the entire class why he is sexually attracted to that male and he says to the teacher ‘I can’t do this’ and she removes him from the classroom.”

This is bullying!

Josephus,

"Is this bullying by a teacher?
A friend Gordon of mine said today.
"I had a 13-year-old child come to me who tells me he’s been told to go home and find a picture of a male celebrity on the internet and explain to the entire class why he is sexually attracted to that male and he says to the teacher ‘I can’t do this’ and she removes him from the classroom.”"

You are going to have to stop telling whoppers on this forum.

It's something you've done before....

"The Burka is seen in some suburbs of Sydney, On entering a shop once in Auburn a Burka clad mother and three children were exiting. I happened to step aside to allow them out and looked the woman in the eye. She went off down the street shouting "Rape" "I've been raped". Where else other than the eyes, do you recognize a fully black garbed woman with mesh over their eyes?

Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 8:55:09 AM

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6585&page=0#198342

Not to mention this rubbish from earlier in the thread:

"I received a copy of a 'facebook' post by a professor who contributed to the Safe schools program that he stated that sex with children should be normalised. I will bring up his name if I can retrace it."

If you're going to make up stories and attempt to pass them off as factual, you should at least have the wits to make them believable.

Josephus,

Is this Gordon also a Greek Orthodox Priest that goes by the name of Belmore?

http://www.facebook.com/familyvoiceaustralia

You guys are a riot.

Utterly shocking, Josephus,

It looks as the female teacher was using the kids to arouse her with their stories and would be completely wet once they've done their homework.
Even if this homework was not mandated by the "safe-school" curriculum, it provided her with an excuse to get what she wanted.

But there are ways around: If I were in place of this child, then this would be my chosen male celebrity: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-02/gorilla-harambe-at-cincinnati-zoo/7469480

//Is this Gordon also a Greek Orthodox Priest that goes by the name of Belmore?//

Gordon Belmore the Greek Orthodox Priest? Doesn't sound like a very Greek name to me. The gentleman in question is the Very Rev. Eusebios Pantanassiotis.

"Father Eusebios, the Abbot of the Pantanassa Greek Orthodox Monastery, told some of the families at a forum in Belmore last month of the confusion and anxiety the new sex education classes are creating for children.

“From first-hand experience as confessor … I’ve been confronted with many examples that have given me the drive to ask you to join us to do something about this …

“I had a 13-year-old child come to me who tells me he’s been told to go home and find a picture of a male celebrity on the internet and explain to the entire class why he is sexually attracted to that male and he says to the teacher ‘I can’t do this’ and she removes him from the classroom.”"

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/jeff-kennett-failure-to-play-it-safe/news-story/494a1c7c3bd85872523ad3f869267ffe

Fr. Eusebios, as a priest, would be well aware that things he is told during confession are confidential and that he is not permitted to divulge them. For a priest, making up stories about confessions you've never actually heard is nowhere near as bad as revealing real confessions. So I think the good Father may have been telling porkies. Shocking, I know.

Why Josephus has chosen to falsely attribute this quote to his imaginary friend Gordon is beyond my ken. It's as if he thinks we don't know how to google stuff and that he won't get caught out lying through his teeth.

Poirot,

As the safe school site has now been largely sanitized much of the original material and links have been removed, though Victoria still wants to use it.

http://www.safeschoolshub.edu.au/common/downloads/All-Of-US-Student-Version-May-2016-v4.pdf

Here are some gems:

"There are lots of different components that make up your sexuality. You can be attracted to a whole spectrum of masculinity, femininity, both or even none. Your feelings, behaviours and identity aren't always the same.
If the example below was a girl they might identify as a lesbian. If they were a boy they might identify as straight."

"We each have our own unique identity, or way we think and feel about ourselves. There are three in particular that help us build our identity; the sex we were assigned at birth, our gender identity, and our sexual identity. Gender isn't quite as simple as whether you're 'male' or 'female'. Everyone has their own gender identity in relation to masculinity and femininity. Some identify with both, and some don't identify with either; it's up to the individual to describe what gender identity fits them best."

"Around 1.7% of the population is intersex. This means that around 1 person in 60 are intersex."

All of the above is rubbish, for > 90% of the population gender identity and attraction is firmly linked to their DNA, and only about 3% of the population leaving school identifies as anything other than straight. To claim that everyone is in a different place on the spectrum is complete BS.

Toni Lavis,

It just goes to show how many people this quote is being attributed to.

I don't believe alleged incident even happened. Nor do I believe that the majority of horror stories coming from the hysteria surrounding the Safe Schools saga ever happened.

I think there's a bit of a 'Lying for Jesus' factor playing a role here.

Gordon is a Chinese doctor in Sydney, who wrote this on facebook.

//Gordon is a Chinese doctor in Sydney//

Why is a doctor hearing confessions, Josephus?

Give it up, dude. You've been rumbled. Trying to dig your way out of a hole is not going to help.

Identity has nothing to do with sex.
We are divine - our true identity is God.
Identifying ourselves with other things, especially with our bodies and their features, is a disease and the source of pains.
We all suffer from this disease to some degree: schools should teach us how to gradually shake these false identifications off and become well.
Misleading children by teaching them to identify with the features of the world and of their bodies is a crime.

SM,

"Everyone has their own gender identity in relation to masculinity and femininity. Some identify with both, and some don't identify with either; it's up to the individual to describe what gender identity fits them best."

What's your problem?

Do you think the things you posted are likely to bring down civilisation as we know it?

A little respect is what's being called for, is what I see.

Back in the dark ages when I was at school, we had quite rigid ideas of gender roles. I was small and wirey and good at sport. I played "girl's games" (softball and netball) but I loved most to play kick to kick footy with the boys during recess - in summer I played cricket at lunch time with the boys...had quite a handy off-spin, actually.

We were not allowed to play cricket with the boys - and I often spent half of lunch break playing cricket with the boys - and the other half on rubbish pick-up duty because I got caught playing cricket with the boys.

I was a tom boy.

I used to surf with boys, out there on the waves while the girls were preening themselves on the beach waiting for the boys to come in.

I suppose my gender identity was neutral in those days - even though I'm a heterosexual and have never felt otherwise.

I suppose that may also be a pointer to why I debate reasonably well on a forum like this mainly inhabited by males - I don't possess a rigidly gender-based idea of the things I should be discussing or the way I discuss them - that is not a bad thing.

Why do you think someone is an extremist because they promote a more respectful and inclusive way of looking at gender identity?

Poirot:

So is gender identity really just a question of the things you do? If you do more female things than male things does that make your gender female? What is the point of describing the things you do if they are irrelevant to the gender with which you identify and the gender you identify is totally up to you? No one can tell you if you are male or female.

If you do only female things you can still identify as male if you want to and no one can tell you otherwise. Your gender is not defined by what you do or the way you behave. In fact it is not defined by anything. It actually does not matter what gender you are except to you. We are all gender neutral so why does anyone want to change their gender? What difference does it make? We are all free to do whatever we like so we can freely choose to do all female things and identify as male. No one can take away your freedom to ‘identify’ so what is the fuss all about and why would you need others to identify you and acknowledge your gender as one or the other since it does not really matter. No one can either affirm your identity nor deny it since it is simply something that exists inside your head as a thought and no one can make you change your own thoughts.

phanto,

Your point is?

My point is that you can do and think and identify how you want - Safe Schools is about recognising that and promoting respect and tolerance on that basis.

As opposed to intolerance and abuse.

Good on you, Poirot. I used to get infatuated with the most tomboyish girls in school, one in particular whose house I used to ride past night after night. And I'm sure there were many like me who got a kick out of female assertiveness.

But isn't this more a matter of equal rights for both boys and girls to play whatever the hell sports they like ? I would certainly support that - in fact, I'm appalled at how little women's sports gets funded and shown on TV.

But I'm not sure what it has to do with gender identification. If we were talking about fashion parades and make-up and wigs, etc., and the outer features of what it may be to BE male or female, farting around about gender worries might be relevant. But boys and girls DOING what they like may be a different issue.

As it happens, I support Roz Ward in her right to express her dopey Gramscian views - get them out there where they can be criticised up hill and down dale. In fact, one supports the other: her right to speak her mind, AND the right of others to rip the living sh!t out of what she says. As with you or me, our rights to express ourselves are matched by others' rights to critically examine what we say or write. It's a kitchen out there, Poirot :)

Strangely, I find myself in agreement with that bloke from the IPA in today's Australian in his support of her right to express herself without penalty: as he writers, she shouldn't have been sacked just for her comments about the flag.

I look forward to the day, perhaps in the very distant future, when no kids get bullied on any grounds at all: height, fatness, ethnicity, religion, gender, hair colour, handedness, class background, and yes, proclivity to dress up. Fluidity ? I'm not sure what that even means in any of these cases. Fluid ethnicity ? Fluid hair colour ? Fluid class background ? Yeah, right.

[TBC]

[continued]

But as a lefthander, I belonged to that last generation when some teachers thought of the left hand as the hand of the devil, so we were made to write right-handed. I topped the class in one year, but came bottom in Writing. I still hate actually writing. But I throw left-handed, eat, etc. left-handed. I'll go to my grave left-handed.

So at least some things are not as fluid as M. Ward would like to think. [Can one use 'Ms.' or 'Mr.' any more ?] My deepest apologies to her (and, of course, to you) in advance for disagreeing.

Cheers,

Joe

Poirot:

“My point is that you can do and think and identify how you want - Safe Schools is about recognising that and promoting respect and tolerance on that basis.”

Presumably you think that this is not happening for transgender kids and you would like to help them but you cannot even define what a transgender person is so how are you going to know who really needs help?

It seems that you think a person’s gender is defined by what they do – why else would you tell us of the activities that you did if it was not meant to back up your argument? This does not seem to be in accord with the teaching which says you are one gender or another simply on your own say so. Roles or activities of behaviour or clothes or appearance have nothing to do with it. None of us can make a judgement about what gender we think you are and none of us are free to say what we think or it is considered to be bullying or abuse.

phanto,

Unfortunately I have to nip off to the local library for a bit, and having debated you before, I realise you have a penchant to debate yourself into a sizeable tangle.

After which, while attempting to untangle yourself, you end up in a worse position.

So I'll get back to you a little later when I have more time.

Loudmouth,

When I was expecting my first child, and obviously a little bored, I decided to see if I could learn to write with my left hand (being a right-handed writer). So over the period of a week or so I practised, starting with a pencil and then graduating to a pen. Oddly enough, by the second week I could write in running writing with my left hand using a pen. The product was barely distinguishable from that written with my right hand...maybe a little less well executed. I think I could even do a reasonable job if I tried to do it these days.

I suppose it's all about making a neural pathway...and it was an interesting exercise. It helped me appreciate the difficulty experienced by left-handers who were made to write using their right-hand.

Poirot:

"phanto,

Unfortunately I have to nip off to the local library for a bit, and having debated you before, I realise you have a penchant to debate yourself into a sizeable tangle.

After which, while attempting to untangle yourself, you end up in a worse position.

So I'll get back to you a little later when I have more time."

It will be OK I am not exactly hanging off your every word.

P,

I have known lots of Tom boys and I never considered them masculine or gender confused. They grew up, got married and raised a family, and are often still involved in sports. The gender spectrum is a construct of these social engineers. It is like saying that 10 million people live on a spectrum between Sydney and Melbourne and the people in between are on the same spectrum and the people in the cities need to understand what life in small towns is about.

I don't give a crap whether someone is male, female or imbetween. I treat them similarly, and don't need to understand their issues. I have a hard enough time understanding my wife and daughter.

Roz Ward was sacked, not because of her opinions, but because of the damage she did to the program in alienating the very people that the program needed acceptance from namely the parents.

Even Daniel Andrews will find it difficult to stay the course given the vociferous resistance in Victoria.

SM,

"Roz Ward was sacked, not because of her opinions, but because of the damage she did to the program in alienating the very people that the program needed acceptance from namely the parents."

I thought she was sacked for writing something about her falg preference.

"I don't give a crap whether someone is male, female or imbetween. I treat them similarly, and don't need to understand their issues. I have a hard enough time understanding my wife and daughter."

Understanding is the first point of departure in treating fellow humans with respect, but yes I agree with the crux of your point. I tend to treat people as I find them regardless of gender.

What's wrong with a program that focuses on respect and tolerance?

Why is Ros Ward an extremist in your eyes?

phanto,

"It will be OK I am not exactly hanging off your every word."

That's okay....whatever.

"....None of us can make a judgement about what gender we think you are and none of us are free to say what we think or it is considered to be bullying or abuse."

But bullying and abuse does occur on the grounds of gender and sexuality. Safe Schools is attempting to address that.

Hi Poirot,

I suppose sport isn't necessarily a male thing. That would be a social construct, surely ? In a male-dominated society, girls and women had a subordinate place, and were denied their natural right to get into all sorts of sports as they wished. So really, sport - per se - has little to do with gender. I think Roz Ward is confusing society with biology. Marx wouldn't be pleased.

As well, if I wore women's clothing (I tried it once, great fun, I even found myself walking with a swing in the hips), and grew my hair long (yep, been there, done that) and even tucked the old boy up my arse (yeah, I wish), I would still be a bloke. My DNA would still be YY. I could even get the pillar of love cut off but I would still be a bloke. Similarly, presumably for people with XY chromosome. I can never get pregnant or have kids, no matter how long I grow my hair. Women, no matter how they dress, can, on the whole. Not much fluidity there.

Unless M. Ward means only how one 'feels' ? Well, many times in the street in town, I feel so handsome that I expect pretty women to fall at my feet, but no such luck. Not yet anyway: but hope springs eternal.

Back to bullying. Remember bullying ? At the bus-stop today, watching some younger HS kids horsing around (How come kids can go home at 11.00 am ? What is it with schools these days ? Maybe they were doing gender-fluidity field-work.) and it struck me that they were subconsciously flirting with the idea of being gender-fluid. No worries, they'll grow out of it and be horny as hell in a year or so.

Cheers,

Joe

poirot: When I was expecting my first child, and obviously a little bored,

poirot: I have a hard enough time understanding my wife and daughter."

Well you've confused me again. Which one of the multitude of sexes there seem to be these days, are you? That would give us a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Poirot:

“Understanding is the first point of departure in treating fellow humans with respect, but yes I agree with the crux of your point. I tend to treat people as I find them regardless of gender.

What's wrong with a program that focuses on respect and tolerance?”

If everyone is due respect then what is there to understand. You just need to know they are a human being and that any disrespect is wrong. You do not need to know that they are different or why they are different. You just need to know that everyone should be accepted. Anyone who abuses or bullies another child for any reason should be pulled into line. That is all the program you need.

There is no need to focus on difference since it is irrelevant. Abusive behaviour should be dealt with full-stop. You can teach an infant to stop abusing another infant by showing them that there are consequences for him if he does it. He does not need to understand the concepts behind it. He just needs to made to stop doing it. That should be the objective anywhere – to stop the bullying.

Giving a child information that it does not need in order to solve a problem is a waste of resources. The school already has the power it needs to control all types of bullying. It is not a lack of knowledge that allows bullying to continue but a lack of control by those who are given the power to control.

When you present information that it is unnecessary to present then it is reasonable to suspect some hidden agenda.

phanto,

That would be all well and good, if bouncing bullies after the act stopped bullying as a social phenomenon. It doesn't.

And that's when bullying is addressed, which in many cases it's not brought to the attention of authority, or in other cases it is, only to be ignored.

Encouraging young people to respect others isn't going to hurt.

.......

Jayb,

Oh well done, Einstein!

"poirot: When I was expecting my first child, and obviously a little bored,

poirot: I have a hard enough time understanding my wife and daughter."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first quote was mine.

The second quote, however, was me quoting Shadow Minister (note the quote marks around that passage in my post).

As in:

"I don't give a crap whether someone is male, female or imbetween. I treat them similarly, and don't need to understand their issues. I have a hard enough time understanding my wife and daughter."

"Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 3 June 2016 1:52:35 PM"

Next.....

Poirot:

“That would be all well and good, if bouncing bullies after the act stopped bullying as a social phenomenon. It doesn't.”

Well it doesn’t stop it one hundred per cent but it is the best way we have found yet to curtail unsociable behaviour. It is how we deal with it in every other place in society. I don’t see why the school needs to be different.

“And that's when bullying is addressed, which in many cases it's not brought to the attention of authority, or in other cases it is, only to be ignored.”

If bullying is not being addressed then it should be. This is a failure of those individuals responsible for monitoring and punishing such behaviour. It is not a failure of the principle of punishment for anti-social behaviour. It is like saying that we should abandon the rule of crime and punishment because some criminals get away with it.

“Encouraging young people to respect others isn't going to hurt.”

That is already implicit in the principle to which everyone adheres when they agree that all human beings should be respected without exception. You cannot state it more clearly than that. That is all the bully, or any potential bully, needs to know. They also need to know that if they do not behave according to that principle they will be punished.

What does the Safe Schools program add to the mix that is not already there?

Hi Poirot,

I'm intrigued by the phenomenon of bullying. I wonder if it ever occurred before, say, 2007 or 2008. Yes, I believe it did. Gosh it probably occurred fifty years ago, even a hundred years ago. Maybe it's been around for thousands of years.

Now what was done about it in my young days ? The teacher on play-ground duty stopped it. End. Otherwise the kids themselves found 'ways'. Bullies were usually big kids, ultimately gutless. Probably most were knocked about by their dads. They were usually unpopular. But they were not unknown, Poirot. And I don't recall, in Primary School OR in Secondary school, if they ever targeted homosexually-oriented kids, as far as we could tell. Perhaps the reverse. Little kids, yes. Fat kids, yes. Ethnic kids, like Balts, yes. But homosexual kids, I don't think they would have had a clue. Bullying is more to do with picking on those perceived as weak.

And surely we should stand up for the weak, the powerless, the friendless, in society ? [Trick question]

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Bullies attack anyone they perceive as vulnerable....they always have done.

The End.

P, if you don't believe me, listen to the gay activist that started the safe schools program:

"Gay rights activist Rob Mitchell — who was sacked from his Victorian government advisory role in 2014, arguing that he lost his job because he was too ­publicly critical of the former Napthine government for its ­inaction on tackling homophobia in schools — now believes Safe Schools has gone too far.

“They are completely out of control,’’.

The Ballarat farmer was frustrated while on the government advisory committee with the slow rollout of Safe Schools and other anti-homophobia programs and was pushing for more resources and government initi­atives. He said he threatened to make a bumper sticker saying that his boss — then ministerial advisory committee chairwoman Ruth McNair — was undermining the health of young people.

“The tragedy in all this is: when I was agitating for money to be put in anti-homophobia programs, the Safe Schools ­Coalition was what I would call a vanilla anti-homophobia program,’’ he said. “It seems to have been transformed into this queer theory sort of academic-driven lot of rubbish. As part of that process, they have lost their core constituency, which is parents of school kids. It has been completely hijacked, been derailed.”

Well looky here...

"La Trobe University withdraws allegations against Safe Schools co-founder Roz Ward"

"La Trobe University has withdrawn all allegations of misconduct against controversial academic Roz Ward and reinstated the Safe Schools co-founder, effective immediately."

"The university's backflip came just hours after it received a threatening legal letter from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. The firm's employment law expert Josh Bornstein argued that suspending someone over a private Facebook post was "unlawful" and contravened the university's enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Act and Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act.

He said the law firm would commence legal proceedings in the Federal Court if the university failed to meet these demands by 10am on Monday.

The university's decision to suspend Ms Ward prompted a public backlash, with students, the National Tertiary Education Union and fellow academics all condemning its actions. They claimed that the university's actions were undemocratic and went against the ideals of free speech.

Professor Dewar said that he was now of the opinion that the university should change course.

"The allegations against Ms Ward and her suspension will be withdrawn," he said.

"The university does not accept that it has acted unlawfully."

Professor Dewar said the university had suspended Ms Ward not because her views were political. but because they were made at a time when there was intense scrutiny of the Safe Schools program, which is closely associated with the university."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/latrobe-university-withdraws-allegations-against-safe-schools-cofounder-roz-ward-20160603-gpbc1t.html#ixzz4AVsCtMyk

You're right, Poirot, people shouldn't be sacked for just being stupid and infantile. As mentioned above a few times, and stressed by a variety of commentators (strangely, most from the Right), such as the IPA, Andrew Bolt, and various others in The Australian, M. Ward shouldn't have been sacked for her/his/its comments about the flag, she/he/it has an equal right to express h/h/I views, and equally, most certainly should be criticised for ihh views on other, more important issues.

I'm glad that you are now defending freedom of speech in a democracy such as Australia's. Everybody should be free to express themselves, short of incitement to violence of course, and everybody else should be equally free to criticise their viewpoint - and be criticised in turn (I think Marx would have called this something like 'transcending the dialectic'): freedom of expression, freedom to criticise - that's how we learn from each other. I'm glad you see it that way too.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

I'm sure if you really really put your mind to it - one day you'll be able to write a post that isn't 100% sarcasm.

Cheers....

No, Poirot, I meant every word of it. If you perceive common sense and agreement as 'sarcasm', that's really your problem. Dob me in to Murdoch Uni: I won't pay the fine, I'll do the time.

And even if it was no more than cheap sarcasm, so what ? Issues still have to be discussed, argued, criticised. They don't get buried by some dummy-spit. Jesus, there was a time when we would have been prepared to mount the barricades and risk death. Now poor little darlings dissolve in a puddle, at 'sarcasm'. Grow a pair, Poirot, show us your gender fluidity.

Or, of course, just for a change, you could stick to the issues :)

Joe

Poirot,

So I see that Roz Ward's lawyers have helped her keep a job, but one thing I know is that if Roz needs to threaten her employers to keep her job, she is going to be on a very tight leash, and she is not going to get away with any of the crap that she has in the past.

Also she is screwed, as once the contract ends, no employer will touch her with a barge pole.

Shadow Minister (quoting Gay rights activist Rob Mitchell), "They are completely out of control,..It seems to have been transformed into this queer theory sort of academic-driven lot of rubbish”

Anti-capitalist queer activism. Where gays are the 'Useful Idiots' of a broader, organised anti-capitalist movement.

Gay issues such as 'gay marriage' are regarded by radical queer activists as 'conservative' and by definition part of the capitalist plot to subjugate.

A better description of them would be lunatic fringe dwellers sponging off the workers while occupying safe sinecures in academia and the public bureaucracies, but neo-Marxist is easier. Although as others have observed on this thread and elsewhere, Marx wouldn't have fed the whining, self-entitled troublemakers.

Loudmouth,

It is no more than "cheap" sarcasm.

I'll tell you what - you get your dancing shoes on and put a really big effort into showing some respect for those you're debating with and write some posts which aren't comprised solely of snide rhetoric - and I'll consider replying.

Actually, I have my doubts as to whether it's possible for you to accomplish such a feat.

So I don't expect you and I will be communicating much in the future.

Such is life....

Lol!, SM,

Her lawyers, no doubt, politely pointed out to La Trobe that their actions were most likely.illegal and a breach of the Fair Work Act - and they do a reverse backward somersault with pike while declaring their innocence.

And you're complaining that they were harassed into conforming with the law!

Amusing, to say the least....

Dear Poirot,

From comments read on the web it seems that
many people feel that freedom of expression is "central to
being an academic." People feel that this sort of
anti-intellectual censorship undermines the whole point of
academia. Here we have an academic suspended for having a
controversial opinion (in private). And, as one commentator asked -
"Isn't that their job?"

The government has stated that it had nothing to do with
La Trobe's re-instatement of Ms Ward. However the government
reiterated its support of the Safe Schools program. It will
become mandatory in all Victorian State Secondary Schools by
2018.

It now appears that it was illegal for someone to lose their
job over personal political views posted on a private Facebook
feed.

Hi SM,

I don't know, maybe Roz Ward could try to find work with the Pseudo-Socialists' new besties, the Islamists. Maybe she could stride into a mosque and tell the imams and muftis about their gender fluidity, and how being hetero wasn't normal but being gay was. I'd like to see that.

Hi OTB,

"Gay issues such as 'gay marriage' are regarded by radical queer activists as 'conservative' and by definition part of the capitalist plot to subjugate."

What, because marriage is bourgeois ? I wouldn't have thought that they could get more idiotically 'radical' than homosexual marriage: do you mean something like being whatever gender you like, when you like ? Or removing dreadful words like 'guys' ? You know, truly ruly important issues like that ? i.e. the utterly trivial preoccupations of the lifelong self-indulgent ?

Hi Poirot,

Snide rhetoric has its place, surely you know that. So does serious discussion of issues. Perhaps you could try that too :)

For example: bullying. What on earth does that have tov do with gender fluidity ? My bet is that, sometime during this week in Victoria, some kid is now going to get beaten up precisely because of his supposed 'gender fluidity', and/or by some other bigger kid who is ambivalent about his.

You are your DNA. You are female, right-handed. I'm male, left-handed. That won't ever change. I could put on women's clothes, grow my hair long, use make-up, wear a bra, talk falsetto (we all can), stuff something down my pants to make my bum look bigger (no, I'm told, I wouldn't have to do that), but I would still be a bloke. Even Bruce Jenner is starting to realise that, after all, he hasn't yet been docked or mulesed. And even if he were, he would still be a he. Roz Ward can shave her head, wear men's clothes, drop her voice, curse and spit and fart like a bloke, but she would still be a she.

So what's next in the Gramscian destruction of bourgeois institutions ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dearest Foxy,

"It now appears that it was illegal for someone to lose their job over personal political views posted on a private Facebook feed."

I applaud this: nobody should be dismissed for expressing themselves, and most critically, not academics. Provided that in return, they expect criticism, ridicule and probably demolition, anybody should have the freedom to express themselves - which would mean, of course, that they would offend someone with a different point of view, and have the right to do so.

They certainly shouldn't lose their job over it. There are so many other, dirtier, ways of forcing people out of jobs, believe me.

Joe

Hi Foxy,

Yup...turns out the whole thing was a pointless exercise.

Except perhaps to highlight right-wing intolerance....at least it brought all the usual hysterical howling out on this forum.

How do you mean, ' right-wing intolerance' ? La Trobe University ? Islamists ? perhaps yes, you couldn't get much more right-wing that Islamism, it's sort of off the scale. But I guess you and your mates are stuck with them. How are you going, by the way, with your advice to them about gender fluidity ? What, no more gays tossed off tall buildings ? For the record, I think that no-one should be tossed off tall buildings because of their sexual orientation. Or stoned for looking at a bloke. Or had their right arm and left leg hacked off for not believing (Surah 32). Interesting bed-fellows, Poirot.

The IPA and Andrew Bolt have written in support of her/his/its/their (M. Ward's) employment. Are you suggesting that the IPA and Bolt are left-wing ? Or just 'tolerant' ? I certainly welcome the tolerance of the Right, up to a point: for instance, I wouldn't support their 'tolerance' of chucking gays off tall buildings. You may have to be more specific.

But if you don't want to hear 'hysterical howling on this forum', just stick your fingers in your ears.

No worries, Poirot, just trying to help :)

Joe

Loudmouth: I think that no-one should be tossed off tall buildings because of their sexual orientation. Or stoned for looking at a bloke. Or had their right arm and left leg hacked off for not believing (Surah 32). Interesting bed-fellows, Poirot.

Would you call that bullying?

Loudmouth - why don't ya have another drink.

You're spitting and gyrating there like like you're having an extended spasm.

Watch that sarc, mate, it'll take yer down eventually.

This place is a lost cause - 90% pure loon.

Lol!....

Hi Poirot,

Was that snide rhetoric, or measured argument ? Is it possible to have a calm discussion about bullying, which seems to have suddenly become a major problem in Victorian schools or, a quite separate issue, another discussion about the promotion of pro-homosexual material in Victorian schools ?

Would it be possible to bring these disparate issues together somehow ? After all, on one hand, bullying is wrong; and, on the other, discrimination against homosexuals is also wrong. It would be good to be able to somehow relate the two issues. Good luck !

Hi Jayb,

In a very loose way, yes, I suppose one could call throwing gays off tall buildings a form of bullying. More likely though, a form of killing. Bullying usually involves (or at least it did when I was a scrawny little kid) teasing, taunting, the imminent threat of pain, humiliation, but not death. When I got my arse rubbed in a filthy urinal in my first weeks at high school, I think that was bullying: it had all the criteria, but it didn't kill me, nor was it meant to: the intention of bullying involves an ongoing sense of shame, fear and dread. You have to be alive to experience those feelings.

So I'm still trying to understand any link between bullying and gender fluidity. But I suppose you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

<<After all, on one hand, bullying is wrong; and, on the other, discrimination against homosexuals is also wrong.>>

And many believe that nose-picking and ear-picking are also wrong.
Many others believe that sex outside marriage is wrong.
Actually, I am vegetarian and I believe that eating meat is wrong.

Where do you stop?

Whether we know it or not, whether we agree or not, many things that we do are wrong, but this does not give anyone the moral right to legislate against it and prosecute those who carry our each and every wrong action.

The ultimate legitimate justification for the existence of states is to protect their citizens against physical harm.

Discrimination by individuals can be wrong - but cannot be remotely compared with bullying. Everyone should have the right to associate only with those they agree to associate with.

Poirot and Foxy,

It is entirely possible to fire someone for expressing a political opinion if political neutrality is condition of employment, as more than a few public servants have found out.

However, as Roz was suspended for bringing the safe schools program into disrepute, it is entirely a different matter. That she brought the program into disrepute is in no doubt as she was successfully fired from her government position for just that.

That she successfully threatened her employers and kept her job, does not mean that her record is unblemished, or that she has retained the same influence over the program, and I doubt she will survive another blunder.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I accept what the lawyers had to say on the subject.
So did the university by re-instating Ms Ward.

What the future holds for Ms Ward?
We'll have to wait and see. However, it turns out
that her colleagues at the university fully support her.

Foxy: However, it turns out that her colleagues at the university fully support her.

But does that really mean anything? If they are predominately Left wing, Marxists, GLTB, Politically Correctionists. Is their opinion really valid.

Foxy,

She still hasn't been reappointed to the gov post, and I seriously doubt that she will have the freedom to do what she was doing.

The amazing thing is that people bang on so much about not enough money for mental health for young people when the ideologies being promoted by these confused only lead to more suicide and deviancy. The very thing they claim to be trying to stop. Regressive ideology is sick and very harmful to kids. The people pushing these sick child grooming ideologies need help not given positions of power. Turnbull and Shorten are pathetically weak.

runner,

"...The people pushing these sick child grooming ideologies need help not given positions of power...."

Now let's ponder for a moment the kinds of institutions which undertake child grooming?

Like religious institutions and their often intolerant and odious teachings.....along the lines of "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man".

I believe that was a good old Jesuit motto.

Here, from a few years back is head of ACCESS Ministries, Evonne Paddison addressing the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion (EFAC)National Conference

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55338278/ACCESS-Ministry-s-head-Evonne-Paddison-s-speech-to-Anglican-Evangelical-Fellowship

"In Australia we have a God-given open door to children and young people with the Gospel, our federal and state governments allow us to take the Christian faith into our schools and share it. We need to go and make disciples."

"I believe that this is the greatest mission field we have in Australia: our children and our students. Our greatest field for disciple making."

"....but we must ask how much of that ministry is actually resulting in Christian conversion and discipleship growing and resulting in church growth?"

The above is just a taste of what she was on about....read on.

SM,

Why do you refer to Ward's lawyers as "threatening" her employers? They merely pointed out the law and what may have been breached in dismissing their client. If the university (as it claims) wasn't in breach of anything - why would they back down and reinstate her?

You do agree with conforming to the law, don't you SM?

runner,

Here's agood one.

While Paddison's address was in 2008, this was in yesterday's Brisbane Times.

"Education Queensland will review religious instruction materials being used in state schools, after one school found a popular program which taught children "every single person has sinned and rejected God and deserves to be punished" may be "soliciting" students to Christianity, in contradiction of departmental policy.

"Religious instruction policy defines proselytising as 'soliciting a student for a decision to change their religion's affiliation'. Solicit by its ordinary meaning is to ask for, to try to obtain, to persuade, to seek, to influence and express the need or desire," Mr Keong wrote in his letter to parents.

"Connect's lesson materials go beyond imparting knowledge of Biblical references, and extend to soliciting children to develop a personal faith in God and Jesus to become a Christian or 'Kingdom Kid'."

""In the teachers' manuals, the Connect authors remind instructors that most of their audience is not yet Christian, and the whole program appears to be based on that premise of trying to solicit them for a decision to become the kind of Christian prescribed in the materials."

"Other lesson plans include aims "to help students to understand that everyone deserves the punishment of God because we have all sinned and ignored Him", to ensure student's learn "to acknowledge their own sinfulness" and asks children to "reflect on whether they accept or reject Jesus""

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/religious-instruction-in-state-schools-soliciting-children-to-christian-faith-20160606-gpcxtw.html

What is that doing in state schools?!

Poirot

'What is that doing in state schools?'
I would say it is doing far less harm than the grooming and sexualisation of kids. Having a healthy fear of God is certainly far better than the regressive ideology that we came from slime and have no real purpose in life except to be confused over whether we are a boy ot girl. It has far less harm than teaching kids to experiment with oral sex, anal sex and any other kind of kinky sex to find out what you are. Yeah I know teaching a few boundaries is an anathema to many regressives however the amount of young kids lives destroyed by such ideology is very obvious.

Good point, Poirot.

Schools exist to educate children, not to indoctrinate them, whether through Christian, Muslim or Gramscian propaganda. Ed. Departments, principals and teachers all need training in how to tell the difference.

Thanks again for your support for this basic principle.

Cheers,

Joe

From the comments in response to that article,

"It's a bit strange, the Windsor State School RI policy is that "Only students who have identified as one of the above faith groups will participate in religious instruction." So they can't be 'proselytised'."

Also, RI is voluntary attendance.

However, if under those conditions RI is claimed to be 'prosletysing', what can be said about the 'Safe Schools' program? Where has it been put to the same test?

come on Loudmouth you know perfectly well that schools long ago adopted 'consensus' science. They teach kids the gw fantasy, evolution tripe, homosexual agenda, revised history, all cultures are equal nonsense and the list goes on. Why single out the one truth that exposes all in need of a Saviour. No wonder our psyche wards are overflowing and young people topping themselves at the rate of knots. Next you will be saying religion should be kept out of Parliament. Tell that to the Greens who are happy for swimmers to be taken by sharks and then bang on about it being killed even though most the population eat fish. By all meand side with Poirot but don't be in denial about what happens in schools.

runner,

"...It has far less harm than teaching kids to experiment with oral sex, anal sex and any other kind of kinky sex..."

None of that is on the Safes Schools site...although, it's kinda interesting, don't yer reckon, how the likes of you and others around here are obsessed with that kind of thing.

"...Having a healthy fear of God is certainly far better than the regressive ideology that we came from slime and have no real purpose in life..."

Well ah'll be!

So telling vulnerable kiddies things like: "every single person has sinned and rejected God and deserves to be punished" is a good thing is it?

Here we have kids who struggle to understand how God can come down from Heaven, appear as a man, get crucified - as in killed - then come alive again and then rise bodily to this place called Heaven again to save us all from...er...something.

And if they don't accept him as their "saviour" - they should ponder their sinfulness and the fact they've ignored him and accept that they need to be punished?

That's good for kiddies, is it?

"....the regressive ideology that we came from slime.."

Sorry to break it to you, runner, but if you were able to peek inside your body, you'd be apprised of the fact that you are in fact mostly slime - as are we all.

It's a wonderful biological system that allows you to eat and sleep and work and play and move around on the planet - gosh, it even let's you partake of forums like this one.

I don't think, however, that it's designed to allow you to be hung on a cross, killed, and then appear to your cohorts fully alive sometime later.

The problem is that Poirot is unaware of her own hypocrisy.

Poirot,

Seriously? Roz Ward comes in with a bunch of union lawyers who give the university 2 days to reinstate Roz or face legal action. That is blatantly an ultimatum with a threat. And as a lawsuit backed by the cashed up unions would even if the Uni won, would leave them with a bill for $100 000s and tie up their resources for years.

So no I don't think that the Uni's back down was more tangentially involved with the law, but more with avoiding union based lawfare. Similarly your question as to whether I agree with conforming to the law as somewhat fatuous.

As I stated previously, for Roz Ward, this is a Pyrrhic victory as after threatening her employers, her future at La Trobe is limited, and other potential employers won't touch her with a barge pole.

//oral sex, anal sex and any other kind of kinky sex//

When did oral sex become kinky?

Hi runner & OTB,

On this point, I'll staunchly defend Poirot in her suggestion that all propaganda should be kept out of schools.

Runner, I certainly don't think that evolution is propaganda, it's been so thoroughly tested and, in fact, has been extended and enriched by all manner of research, from archaeology to zoology, and from developments in genetics and a host of other sciences. There's nothing left to refute it.

As for the outmoded notion that 'all cultures are equal', that's taking a bit of a beating these days, what with tribal societies, such as that which Islam springs from, and Aboriginal societies - and all traditional societies for that matter - demonstrating extreme levels of violence and the devaluation of human beings, particularly women. Judge a 'culture' by how its adherents treat their women and kids: that might give any PC-oriented child reason to doubt the 'equal culture' theory.

Cheers,

Joe

otb,

"The problem is that Poirot is unaware of her own hypocrisy."

Okay...why don't you explain it to me?

Religious nutters and their right-wing compatriots start a campaign against of program highlighting respect and tolerance...as per usual.

On the bandwagon they climb, hysterically flinging around terms such as "anal sex, oral sex, penis this, penis that" - you know, the same old same old "sex is rude" - and we're going to dictate how the zeitgeist should go in the 21st century.

Sorry, otb, but I find it a whole different kettle of fish to compare a program that champions respect - to one which teaches children about a fantastical God/man - who tells us that we are all born in "sin" (separateness from "God) - and for that we should expect to be punished.

A-a-a-and the right-wing swoop in for some damage control after an unfortunate ally shoots his mouth off with baseless assertions.

This is fun to watch.

Loudmouth, "I'll staunchly defend Poirot in her suggestion that all propaganda should be kept out of schools"

If she meant that I would agree. Her hypocrisy is comic.

"So telling vulnerable kiddies things like: "every single person has sinned and rejected God and deserves to be punished" is a good thing is it?"

No, it is too advanced for children. This should probably be taught in university once the student has developed their intellectual and critical abilities rather than when they are too young, thus understand this literally and develop an unhealthy primitive fear as a result.

Ditto for sexual education.

//Ditto for sexual education.//

Yeah, we sure wouldn't want kids to learn disgusting things like this:

http://tinyurl.com/jsaz5xj

It will warp their little minds. Oh please won't somebody think of the children?

Hi I'm a bit puzzled: you ask SM if he is okay with bullying, after he has pointed out that he is 'a fierce anti-bullying advocate'. Like me, I assume he is against ALL bullying, including that of homosexual kids, kids in some ambivalence over their sexuality, trans-, bi-, multi and non-sexual children of all genders. Nobody in school should be bullied. End of.

Perhaps the Unsafe Schools propaganda campaign could be extended to include the protection for all children against bullying ? Would you support that ?

Cheers,

Joe

LM,

My point exactly. Bully afflicts everyone that is different, too small, too fat, too quiet, etc.

"Ken Wiltshire, who reviewed the national curriculum for the Coalition government last year, said controversial subjects should be taught only with parent­al consent. He said the Safe Schools furore showed the danger of letting “ideological groups’’ devise lesson plans without Education Department input.

“Governments should never outsource the development of curriculum content to interest groups, particularly those with an ideological purpose or agenda,’’ he told The Australian. “There is no quality assurance. No controversial material should be taught in schools without the agreement of parents, acting in concert with the school.’’

Emeritus Professor Wiltshire — a professor of public administration at the University of Queensland — said the furore over Safe Schools showed why education authorities should vet any lessons involving sex, relig­ious, alcohol or drug education.

“We need to learn the lesson of the Safe Schools agenda,’’ he said.

“We don’t want material creeping into the curriculum without it being quality assured. You should never outsource the development of a curriculum to any group with a particular agenda, or blindly accept any curriculum material they have provided to be used in schools.

“Everyone should have the right to say what they think should go into a curriculum — but at the end of the day the education ministers are responsible for the curriculum.’’

Professor Wiltshire said governments often left the teaching of religion and sex education to outside groups because the issues were political “hot potatoes’’.

The Safe Schools Coalition — an anti-bullying program for gay and intersex children — has been broadly criticised over its ideological agenda, which tells children they are “gender fluid’’ and teaches them it is “heteronormative’’ to refer to boys and girls, or use the pronouns “he” or “she”.

Its classroom materials included links to a gay youth website, Minus 18, which included instructions on penis tucking and chest binding, and promoted online links to sex shops and gay nightclubs."