Anti-gay Liberals vs. the 'Safe Schools' program

[David]

The Liberal backbenchers' tantrum has gone full toddler after their own party's review failed to uncover any dirt on Safe Schools whatsoever:

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/coalition-mps-crack-it-after-review-of-safe-school/9a92038d-fe99-4e9f-9b89-0a5fa0ee3a43.htm

George Christensen has probably worked out by now that, while a charge of 'cultural marxism' might raise the blood pressure of subscribers to The Australian, pretty much no-one else cares about '90s culture wars. Instead, he's gone for a far safer bet: paedophiles.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/george-christensen-links-safe-schools-program-to-paedophilia/7252476

This is really cynical stuff from Christensen. Don't get me wrong: Dowsett does seem to have, at least at one point, held some rather alarming views about child abuse (you can read the whole article that Christensen quotes here). Some may think that, regardless of one's status as a respected academic with decades of experience as a researcher, such views should disqualify one from continuing on in an academic position – personally, I take the Voltairian view that the academic space should have the capacity for the expression of any and all views, no matter how outrageous. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or otherwise of the Safe Schools program.

Whatever opinions Dowsett has held or might still hold, the idea that a committee-produced school resource in 2016 could contain even the remotest endorsement of sexual abuse, or that those views could have informed its development, is ridiculous and insulting.

Still, Christensen may be on to a good thing here; there's nothing more guaranteed to whip the tabloids and shock jocks into a frenzy than an association involving paedophilia (no matter how tenuous), and it's hard to imagine that Dowsett's academic career will be unaffected by this. But it would be a disgrace if, after getting the review they wanted, the Liberal Party's homophobic bloc were permitted to damage this program in any way.

[stui magpie]

I read about the outcomes of the review a couple of days ago, all looked fair to me.

A few tweaks and adjustments were recommended but overall to keep it as is. I'm happy with that and yeah the full on throw the toys from the cot reaction of the far right dickwads is as funny as it is predictable.

[Jezza]

The regressive left doing what it does best!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/protesters-trash-cory-bernardis-adelaide-office/news-story/8c435956291f368add18f0fa92410052

[Wokko]

[stui magpie]

Kudos to Christopher Pyne for his defence of the program.

[David]

^ Agree. Seems like he held Abbott back from screwing with it "back in the olden days", too. He's gone up in my estimations.

As for Bernardi's office, looks fun, but I'm not sure it will hurt his cause much.

[David]

Speaking of scumbags:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/18/turnbull-government-unveils-dramatic-changes-to-safe-schools-program

Turnbull had a chance to stand up for decency and he blew it big time. Disgraceful.

[swoop42]

Turnbull has turned out to be a spineless leader.

He's actually worse than Abbott because the decisions tone made he actually believed in however bat shit they were.

As for Bernadi that couldn't happen to a nicer c$#@.

Who voted for him by the way?

Excuse my ignorance but are senators actually publicly elected or are they just party selected to fill a position.

Bernardi is just plain foul and like Harradine before him yields way to much power in comparison to how little primary vote they actually receive.

His extremist homophobic religous view point would at a guess represent 2% of the population.

[swoop42]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/03/first-preference-votes-for-elected-senators.html

I'm still confused.

LOL.

Personally I don't really like that individuals from all sides of politics get to hold so much power without being popularly elected to represent a certain region of a state.

It often feels like also that the people who end up in the senate are the members of that party who would be more divisive for the general public whether they be a Bernardi or Wong.

[David]

Actually, as a rule, the number one Senate spot for each state tends to go to corrupt factional hacks. Wong was an exception; she only got it after a popular outcry within the party when (as an established senator) she was dropped for some right-wing union ring-in. Because each major party is guaranteed of winning at least one upper house seat in each state, it's the easiest path to politics you can get, and you can pretty much only lose your plum position when your party gets sick of you (or when the next back-room factional deal takes place). So, yeah, we may be stuck with Bernardi and Abetz for good, unfortunately. They'll never have to face a one on one election like Sophie Mirabella or Wilson Tuckey did, where their dinosaur views could actually be rejected by the electorate. The only way to vote against them is to join the 3% of us who vote below the line and put them last.

[HAL]

Next question? What was the question again?

[Pies4shaw]

[HAL]

Yeah that's right. What was the question again?

[Pies4shaw]

^^^ Something about "Four legs good , two legs better", HAL.

[HAL]

Enough about me, let's talk about the Pies.