Discriminating against our right to discriminate

More barbarians at more gates:

A CONTROVERSIAL review of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act is threatening to become a political headache for the Brumby Government, with many churches, religious leaders, parents and private schools vowing to defend discrimination based on faith.

The parliamentary review, covering all areas of discrimination — including whether private men’s clubs can continue to exclude women — has sparked widespread alarm among religious Victorians, from the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne to Islamic, Christian and Jewish schools, and faith-based hospitals and aged-care centres.

We call it religious freedom, and try to avoid the word “discrimination”, but why shouldn’t we be able to flout the laws everyone else has to follow simply because of which possibly imaginary figure we say demands us to worship them in certain arbitrary ways?

Listen to the forces of evil come to oppress us:

One of the nation’s leading discrimination law experts, Professor Margaret Thornton, supports the review. “I think that if private schools receive money from the state, as they do, they should be subject to the law of the land, they should not be able to claim all these exemptions,” she said.

The Law Institute of Victoria’s Dominique Saunders said: “Unless there is a direct link to the observance or teaching of religion, there should be no exception in the laws to discriminate, for example, against a gay maths teacher. I don’t think that is acceptable.”

How can a poof teach maths? They can’t even add up the number of men or women who are required for a marriage! Ooh, snap!

Oh, alright. How about if instead of the teacher being gay, he’s indisputably, openly and cartoonishly devoted to the forces of evil?

Rob Ward, the Victorian director of the Australian Christian Lobby… said: “If someone says, ‘I worship Satan, but I am a pretty good maths teacher, can I come and teach your Christian kids maths?’ Well, probably not.”

When we say “single mother” and “gay teacher” that’s who we mean, you know.

Anyway, we’re calling on Victorians to “Make a Stand” at our new website:

sinister
I like the way you’ve made us all hip with the “r” thing, but could you make us look a bit more shadowy and sinister please?

Please, our faith is under fire! Join us as we fight this audacious push to QUASH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM by limiting our rights to tell employees what they must do in their private lives.

Unless you’re a satanist. In which case, we don’t want your help.

139 responses to “Discriminating against our right to discriminate

  1. They Always pick on us Satanists. The bastards.

    The bigger scam is tax dodging. Because Sanatarium profits go into the Seventh Day Adventist Church they get tax breaks.

  2. So you have two teachers. Both of them are as equally qualified, both the same age and are both brilliant Maths teachers.

    One of them is a young Christian woman. She is involved in her church and community and volunteers regulary at a food bank and toy libary.

    The other is a young gay man who likes clubbing, going to sauna’s for casual sex with other consenting men. He is also involved in organising committe of the Pride Parade.

    Now which one of these people do you want teaching your kids maths?

  3. What is it with those who fear TEH GAY and these kinds of comparisons?

    If it came down to a loving and caring Christian involved in charity work and a hateful thieving homosexual who molests children, I know who I’d want teaching my children!

  4. Turtle-I, like all other non-bigots, wouldn’t give a flying fuck about their personal lives, as long as they were good teachers.

    “The other is a young gay man who likes clubbing, going to sauna’s for casual sex with other consenting men.”

    Because, of course, ALL gay men are promiscuous dirtbags who sleep around with whoever they can get their limp-wristed hands on. They certainly NEVER become renowned stage actors or environmentalists.

    How about, Turtle, a more complex problem than your strawman. What if the young man is monogamous gay Christian, and the woman is a pagan, but has worked with Church groups in fundraising events? How about some shades of gray for a change?

  5. “I, like all other non-bigots, wouldn’t give a flying fuck about their personal lives, as long as they were good teachers.”

    What nonsense.

    Everyone (who is honest) is going to choose the young Christian woman over the young gay man.

  6. No, Turtle, only sanctimonious, prejudiced bigots.

  7. Yes who would want the young woman to who volunteers at the toy libary to teach your child maths when you could have the young male teacher….

    http://indolentdandy.net/fitzroyalty/2009/07/17/tasty-winter-wonderland-on-this-saturday-at-sircuit/

  8. Zippy the Pinhead

    Turtle – yer an idiot – I’d pick the promiscious gay clubber anytime. Much more life experience, grounded in reality and won’t be pushing delusional crap. Would also have to be a frikken gifted teacher to hold down the job and get wasted on amyl every weekend to boot!

  9. Turtle, it’s always going to be perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of an applicant’s doing things for the community, like volunteer work.

    That’s got nothing to do with the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or religion.

    Nice attempt to mix the two up, though. Dishonest, and shameless – but clever.

  10. What s/he’s done is define sexuality as morality, so discriminating against someone because they’re gay is the same as discriminating against someone because they’re evil, because gay = evil, do you not see?

    I can’t decide whether it’d be worse if Turtle did this cynically – knowing but not caring how dishonest it is – or if s/he genuinely thinks that’s a reasonable link to draw.

  11. “The parliamentary review, covering all areas of discrimination — including whether private men’s clubs can continue to exclude women”

    http://www.sircuit.com.au/Site/Butt_Naked.html

    They do however let women in on Sundays.

  12. Turtle, you keep linking to upcoming gay parties. Is there something you want to tell us?

  13. Oh nice smear.

  14. Smear? Turtle, there’s nothing wrong with being fascinated by gay parties. I’m just perplexed as to why you keep linking to them here, when they’ve got nothing to do with the discussion.

  15. If those not holding absolutely to the dogma of a faith-based organization are allowed to be excluded from employment opportunities, then the converse should also be allowed: precluding those with a faith that says some things must never be questioned and re-evaluated from teaching scientific disciplines (probably including maths and rigorous social sciences) in state institutions from kindergarten through to universities.

    The tricky part is for faith-based “welfare” groups and schools that accept government money, and could thus be seen as acting as an agency of government: this might imply that an agency of government is disobeying the laws governing the operations of government. Is the government, even by proxy, allowed to break it’s own rules?

  16. How could you not be fascinated by a culture where the subjects gather to:

    “Watch the parade of chests, legs, cocks and butts.”

    What a fascinating culture.

  17. What a deliberately disingenuous attempt to misrepresent gay people in general.

    The thing about Turtle’s trolling is that he/she is actually one of a rapidly decreasing minority – if one were to ban every gay marriage opponent for spouting misleading garbage, there’d be none left. That’s all they’ve got.

    Look what Turtle’s reduced to in a flimsy effort to justify employers discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality.

  18. “What a deliberately disingenuous attempt to misrepresent gay people in general.”

    Where are they? Where are all the decent civic minded gay people who are speaking out about these type of venues and events? Where are the leaders within the gay community calling for the closure of casual sex beats and the sauna’s?

    Not a peep. They just want to be married apparently.

    And as far as my “flimsy effort to justify employers discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality.”

    Prehaps ‘teh gay’s’ can start there own schools and parents can make the conscious decision to send the kids to the gay school or the local church run primary.

  19. “Where are they? Where are all the decent civic minded gay people who are speaking out about these type of venues and events? Where are the leaders within the gay community calling for the closure of casual sex beats and the sauna’s?”

    What? Sorry, you want them to be sanctimonious pricks who like to tell other people what they can do with their private lives, like you? And failing that, you think that they’re responsible for anything those other gay people choose to do?

    Just like you’re responsible for everything that young straight men get up to?

    “Not a peep. They just want to be married apparently.”

    The ones who want to get married, yes. You get that not all gay people are the same, right?

    “Prehaps ‘teh gay’s’ can start there own schools and parents can make the conscious decision to send the kids to the gay school or the local church run primary.”

    I don’t think gay people are stupid enough to think that a teacher’s sexuality has anything to do with their ability to teach. Your suggestion makes no sense at all.

  20. No I am pretty sure that gay people are able to teach. I would just prefer that if I choose to send my child to a school which embraces a specific ethos, that the members of that school community also share those beliefs.

    Oh yeah btw good to here that the gay community has no sanctimonious pricks within it.

  21. “No I am pretty sure that gay people are able to teach. I would just prefer that if I choose to send my child to a school which embraces a specific ethos, that the members of that school community also share those beliefs.”

    What, bigotry? Prejudice against other people on stupid, baseless grounds?

    Don’t see why the state should be assisting people to indoctrinate their children in such an “ethos”. Those poor kids.

    And where did I say that the gay community has no sanctimonious pricks in it? I’m sure it does. They’re just ordinary people like the rest of us. Our straight community has sanctimonious pricks like you in it; I’m sure theirs has the like also. But they’re as unrepresentative of their fellows as you are of the rest of us.

  22. One day…… if you are lucky enough to be blessed with a child. You may understand.

  23. ” I would just prefer that if I choose to send my child to a school which embraces a specific ethos, that the members of that school community also share those beliefs”
    Then surely such schools guided by such principals and parental pressure should say no to students NOT of the same denomination…. and government funds that go with them.

  24. What difference would that make on this issue?

    You think when I have a child I’ll suddenly become a prejudiced moron? Why? Is there some part of the process that turns you into an idiot?

  25. ““Watch the parade of chests, legs, cocks and butts.””

    Take out the word cock, and you’ve got a straight man’s view of the world, in a lot of cases. Are you saying you wouldn’t want straight men teaching as well? Or would you restrict teachers to straight people who share exactly the same type of views as you?

    Sexuality and expressions of sexuality are not confined to homosexual men. That includes public sex and casual sex. Dogging isn’t a strictly homosexual practice, yet no-one makes a big deal of it, because they aren’t uncomfortable with straight casual sex.

    And why is it you, Turtle, like every other gay-hating bigot I’ve ever come across seem to solely focus on gay men? Is it the anal sex thing?

    You do realise heterosexual couples engage in that kind of thing as well, don’t you?

    And that it doesn’t make them bad people, or unfit to teach children?

  26. What’s ‘dogging’?

    Sex with dogs?

  27. That’s bestiality, Turtle.

    An explanation of Dogging can be found here

  28. Wow we really do move in different worlds.

  29. Not really. It’s not a world I move in, but it’s one I’m aware of.

  30. Sorry that wasn’t directed specifically at you Kerri.

    It’s just I was unaware that so man people had all these peculiar sexual deviations.

    And for the record – no I would not like someone who likes getting gangbanged in the anus while others watch, teach my children

  31. I think you’ve misunderstood something. Dogging isn’t specifically anal sex.

  32. “And for the record – no I would not like someone who likes getting gangbanged in the anus while others watch, teach my children”

    You still haven’t explained what conceivable difference it would make.

  33. wow… just wow. This is the most ridiculous thread i have read for a while.

    Turtle, I feel sorry for whatever brainwashed kids you may trick someone into having with you.

    As far as teachers are concerned, as long as they can spell and define the meaning of the word “bigot”…

  34. “You still haven’t explained what conceivable difference it would make.”

    Well the Christian teacher who volunteers at the food bank and toy libary and does not go out ‘dogging’ I believe would have a better moral code then the person who does go out and spends most of there weekend at a beat having anal sex in public toilets.

    But hey that’s just me (oh and about 99.9% of school age children).

  35. whoops that was meant to read…

    oh and about 99.9% of parents of school age children.

    whoops again….. just change that last line to……

    oh and to all right minded people.

  36. Lynda Hopgood

    Turtle – I am a parent and if anything I am MORE pro-gay than I’ve ever been. I think it’s because I’m getting increasingly frustrated that this sort of blatant discrimination continues to exist when it should have been stomped on years ago.
    I would have ABSOLUTELY NO TROUBLE having my children taught by a gay teacher, provided that teacher was a good one. I would also have no trouble with a person of colour, a person from a different religious background, a man or a woman or a transgendered person. The concept is the same. If it is illegal to discriminate against people on these grounds in other aspects of life then it should also apply to employment in EVERY sector of the market.
    Teachers are there to teach as specific subject which is unrelated to their home life, unless I fell asleep and missed where Homosexuality 101 became part of the curriculum.
    Come on, Turtle; how about you explain to us how being a homosexual impacts on, say, the teaching of geography or mathematics?

  37. “I would have ABSOLUTELY NO TROUBLE having my children taught by a gay teacher….. or a transgendered person. ”

    Oh I didn’t take into account the ‘enlightened’ views of Lyn Hopgood when I made my previous sweeping generalisation about all right minded parents not wanting there children being exposed to people who solicit sex in public toilets, carparks and ‘grope mazes’.

  38. Oh, look. Turtle’s still trying to conflate gay=evil, straight=virtuous.

    Turtle, a school will always be able to discriminate on the grounds of merit – the teacher who volunteers obviously is preferable to the one who doesn’t. That’s an entirely lawful basis for employment choise and always will be.

    But your attempt to suggest that has anything to do with sexuality makes no sense at all.

    It’s just as plausible that the young gay teacher volunteers at the local library on the weekends and the young straight teacher goes out partying and shagging random girls.

    The point is that their sexuality tells you NOTHING about their overall character, and it is only the stupidly prejudiced who would make the illogical and insupportable assumptions you keep making above. It should NOT be lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, no matter who the organisation is.

    PS You can keep your children from being exposed to sex in public toilets, car parks and “grop mazes”, just as you keep them away from sordid heterosexual nightclubs and other inappropriate adult activities. You can’t, however, keep them from being exposed to the people who partake in those things – because THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. They look JUST LIKE US. What people do in their private lives IS NOT OBVIOUS BY LOOKING AT THEM.

    It’s also none of your business, even if they’re teaching your kids.

  39. Lynda Hopgood

    Turtle; I can only assume you don’t know any gay people. By that I mean REALLY know them, like as a close friend or member of your family, not someone you’ve heard about from a friend of a friend’s cleaner. If you did actually know a gay person – any gay person – you would quickly learn that they are no different to the rest of us and you would just as quickly knock this stupid, mindless bigotry on the head.
    Oh, and homosexuals can be WOMEN as well, so all your bigotted comments actually only apply to half the gay population.
    Oh, and while we are on bigotry, I am somewhat surprised that the child molestation argument hasn’t been brought out of the closet (so to speak). Do you believe that one as well, or do you accept that most sexual assault of children is perpetrated by HETEROSEXUAL men? Maybe they are the ones who should be vetted from teaching our children, because, usuing the Turtle logic, they are obviously ALL evil …

  40. Lynda Hopgood

    I am so *headdesk* I can barely type. I meant USING, of course

  41. Lynda Hopgood

    I have another question for you Turtle: what can you tell us about the private life of the person who taught you Year 5 maths?

  42. If there is one reason to discriminate between teachers based on what are normally considered private matters, it involves subjects that require questioning, evaluating evidence and hypotheses, etc. People who hold that unquestioned acceptance of ANY idea can be a moral virtue are obviously unsuitable as teachers for such subjects, although would still be suitable school employees as janitors, receptionists, performing arts teachers, etc. Mind you, if that person of faith could aver that acceptance of dogma is valid ONLY in non-falsifiable domains, then such a person COULD be a suitable science teacher.

  43. that whore logo is fail.

    the bigger question is, how do you reconcile freedom of association with anti-discrimination law? Surely everyone should be allowed to associate with whoever they want, even if they form a club of bigot idiots

  44. I don’t think that extends to children’s education.

  45. but shouldnt parents have the right to decide who teaches their children?

  46. Why?

    Shouldn’t all children get a good, objective, fair education, regardless of what their parents feel like indoctrinating them with?

  47. Zippy the Pinhead

    It is bigoted people like Turtle who teh gayness = teh evilness that has made it virtually impossible for any male to work with children.

    Because once gay=evil it is one small step in their small mind for it to become gay=reallyfrikkenevil/kiddy fiddler.

    We desperately need males in childcare and teaching, but it aint gonna happen while broader society sees it as a gay career choice (in the lame and the queer senses) at the best and potential molestor at the worst.

    The societal barriers STRAIGHT guys have to being around children are huge, for fear that they are gay=evil, let alone their queer brothers, (who are probably would be more likely to enter the profession as they are used to dealing with bigotry and have more balls)

  48. I think if parents want to indoctrinate their kids into mystical nonsense they should be allowed. Telling them who they must select as a teacher is a form of discrimination, although yes pot kettle black and im sure they’re not enjoying the turnaround

  49. This is what always gets me when people talk about education – when they’re concerned with the PARENTS’ rights, not the kids’.

    Why should some kids have to suffer being indoctrinated with mystical nonsense and not having a decent education as a result?

  50. “Telling them who they must select as a teacher is a form of discrimination, although yes pot kettle black and im sure they’re not enjoying the turnaround”

    Last time I checked, the school in question appointed teachers, not parents.

    Can you imagine the mess if parents could use their personal prejudices – no matter how insane – to appoint teachers? You’d have Joe Bloggs not wanting someone gay teaching his son, Jane Doe not wanting a Christian teaching her daughter, Jack Smith not wanting someone who believes in evolution teaching his kids – it would be madness.

    Also, inherently stupid. You can’t protect your children from view-points that are different from your own, even if you wanted to. And what would be the point? Ensuring that your children are ill-equiped to deal with view-points other than their own?

  51. kids will always suffer if their parents are kooks, religious or otherwise. I dont think we have a right to tell people how to educate their children, though.

    why would we try and outlaw discrimination between private citizens? (public education different of course). if a gay maths teacher isnt welcome at nutter college, i think we should respect their right to decide as a group who they want to associate with

  52. Education isn’t just a matter of “private association”. It’s a fundamental right. Kids have a fundamental right to a decent education, not one that’s corrupted by dingbats.

  53. “I dont think we have a right to tell people how to educate their children, though.”

    We have an obligation to ensure every child receives an appropriate education though – and that includes not teaching them that only people who are exactly like them and agree with their views are “fit” people.

  54. Counter-idea. We allow prejudice… uh… measured discrimination in private companies, but ensure that christians are not allowed to teach in the public sector. After all, we have a secular state, and I don’t want teachers looking out into a classroom of bright young minds and thinking “Ah… Souls for my heavenly father’s terrible purposes. Who here shall be saved and who shall be case into a lake of fire?”

    Oh, and public universities as well. Maybe the public service. DEFINITELY the army… hmmm… probably a few others as well…

  55. It seems to me that teachers are there to teach and not act as moral guardians for my child.

    From my daughter’s math teacher I want tuition in mathematics, not a given brand of morality.
    Teaching ethics and morality to my daughter is my job and refining or rejecting it is hers.

    Having said that, I can see how imperfect parents, who are too busy to explain to their children the broader concepts of right and wrong, as well as the finer points of their favourite pre-packaged morality, will have some concern that their nominated surrogate parents, in this case, teachers, share their values.

    I suppose parents who are disinterested in assuming a pro-active role in the moral and social developement of their children cannot be expected to discover that those same children are in possession of a wonderful and robust ability to develope, and live by, a moral code which is not only workable, but well-suited to their needs.

    If, through negligent parenting, a child has never been allowed to build, and test, their own moral architecture then it’s only natural that a parent would not trust them to sense the difference between ‘right and wrong’.

    It is precisely these moral and ethical illiterates who, not unlike a turtle, will grow to seek protection from the dangers of others by hiding under the ‘shell’ of a pre-packaged morality.
    And that’ll keep ’em good and safe from all the Poofs and Lesbos!

    Cheers.

  56. What a load of fluffly motherhood statements.

  57. You don’t have anything, do you, Turtle.

  58. Well I was going to go on about goverment funded organisations that discriminate against people
    http://www.glhv.org.au/about

    but I am awe struck by the comments of the contributor prior to myself and his / her jibbering about his / her childs ‘moral architecture”. Sound’s like this child is either a fashion accesory or an experiment.

  59. Not a link to a gay sex party. That’s a change. But Turtle, could you explain who is being discriminated against here (and before you say “straight people”, keep mind the multicultural organisations that, according to your logic, discriminate against Anglo-Australians)?

  60. No it doesn’t, Turtle.

    And we’re talking about discrimination in employment, not government health bodies looking at particular health concerns of specific parts of the population.

    You’re really reduced to the scattergun, throw mud, try to confuse the issue approach, aren’t you?

  61. “Not a link to a gay sex party. ”

    You looked at that link and you are ok with that are you Private Baldrick Tom?

    Dozens of men wandering around a bar naked before entering the “grope maze”. Then off to a private booth to have casual consentual sex with a stranger.

    Straight or Gay – we dont want that kind of person teaching our children.

  62. What kind of enquiries should an employer be free to run, then? Burst into employees’ bedrooms in the middle of the night to make sure they’re home in bed AND ALONE?

    In any case, Turtle, none of this has anything to do with discriminating against people for being gay. How determinedly you have driven this thread off-topic.

  63. At least you’re focusing on gays in general, rather than a small minority of them.

    I need to ask-what is it with conservatives and assuming sexuality and morality are one and the same? Turtle, it IS possible that someone a) is gay, b) is a teacher, c) enjoys consensual group sex, and d) is a moral human being with a sense of right and wrong. None of those points are mutually exclusive.

    And Jeremy’s point still holds-you haven’t explained how a person’s sex life would impact on their teaching ability.

  64. Hello there – I’ve enjoyed your blog for a couple of years now – always interesting. Couldn’t help thinking that the young reptile is making the place rather unpleasant, though! Amazes me how downright objectionable the anti-gay right can be. As an atheist I can’t understand how religious groups can get tax-breaks to teach children discriminatory and anti-scientific guff. I wonder if there are any atheist groups out there willing to have a try a getting this kind of extra funding?

  65. Mal: Re “The Young Reptile”. Perhaps with that pseudonym it is an experiment to see how long it takes someone to say “pull your head in – you are sticking your neck out too far”.

    And nobody has mentioned the most noted demographic for being bad for students… priests. Or Malka Leifer… ultra-orthodox school, ultra-orthodox principal – abused children – and the parents tried to hush it up.

  66. “Couldn’t help thinking that the young reptile is making the place rather unpleasant, though! Amazes me how downright objectionable the anti-gay right can be. As an atheist…”

    Yes because if I wasn’t here we could just all just happily wallow in our pro atheist, pro dogging and pro group sex group think.

  67. Yeah, ‘cos that’s a reasonable description of this anti-discrimination thread. “Pro atheist, pro dogging and pro group sex”. You idiot.

    No wonder you use a new pseudonym whenever you show up here, “Turtle”.

    What a liar you are.

    And how increasingly obvious your attempts to avoid answering the very simple question – what conceivable impact on your child would their maths teacher’s private life have?

  68. I think its pretty strange Turtle, that you cannot seem to seperate “gay” and “group sex” in your mind.

    Are you really so bloody thick you think that because some gay men are into group sex, that this reflects on the behaviour of all gays?

    Are you aware that some straight men are into group sex too, do you feel this reflects badly on you personally Turtle, as a straight man?

    By your feeble logic, the fact that some heterosexuals engage in kinky sex reflects badly on ALL of us heteros. The behaviour of a minority must surely mean ALL heteros are perverse swingers, incapable of commitment and a danger to children.

    You have also implied that having gay men teaching our children presents some kind of moral hazard, and that homosexuality and pedophillia go hand in hand. Obviously, in your diseased mind, a desire to have sex with men is the same as a desire to have sex with smal boys.

    I can only assume you will be applying the same logic to your own actions and motivations that you apply to homosexuals…

    So Turtle, does the fact that you are a heterosexual man mean you are constantly resisting a desire to molest small girls?

    Anecdotal evidence has recenty shown that Aussie footballers regularly engage in orgies, gay circle jerks and sexual abuse.

    I suggest that by your logic, this behaviour reflects badly on every single person who plays football, and anyone who watches it on TV is tacitly supporting gang rape and homoerotic group masturbation.

    Let us hound footallers out of our community, and by God, never let them near any children.

  69. I wonder if ‘Turtle’ would approve of Lynne Tziolas teaching his children? http://indolentdandy.net/fitzroyalty/2008/06/18/truth-beats-propaganda/

  70. I read the name as ‘whore e’. It’s unfortunate.

  71. As a elderly gayman I have found through life, that people who demean or have an over interest in gay people, have personal issues in their lives that they are afraid to address.
    Gay bashers it has also been said, have latent homosexual tendencies.

  72. “And how increasingly obvious your attempts to avoid answering the very simple question – what conceivable impact on your child would their maths teacher’s private life have?”

    …still waiting!

    I’ve been asking this question of homophobes for years, and have not once got an answer. Even a half-arsed attempt would do. I can only conclude that such a thing is, um, impossible.

  73. Sound’s like this child is either a fashion accesory (sic) or an experiment.
    Turtle @ 20 July, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Well, if you’re the parent that you claim to be then you’ll understand how the first characterisation is offensive and the second is a universal truth of parenting.

    The one thing that I can tell you about my child is that if she ever discovers that she is gay, she’ll be able to sit down and tell me about it.
    She also knows that I won’t hate her for it.

    I note your children won’t have that luxury.
    Pity their poor souls!

    Cheers

  74. “…still waiting!”

    are you Tim? Have a look at the second comment on this thread

    “So you have two teachers. Both of them are as equally qualified, both the same age and are both brilliant Maths teachers……..”

    I am still waiting too for someone to HONESTLY answer my question.

  75. I have no doubt that at some stage your daugher Marek Bage will come sit down and tell you about some crisis in her life. One I suspect that is in the making because of your style of parenting.

  76. I’d pick the one who does volunteer work.

    Now, try answering our question. What difference does the maths teacher’s private life make to their ability to teach?

    And here’s a bonus hypothetical question, adapted from yours:

    So you have two teachers. Both of them are as equally qualified, both the same age and are both brilliant Maths teachers.

    One of them is a young heterosexual woman who likes clubbing, going to clubs for casual sex with consenting men. She is also involved in the organising committee of her local conservative political organisation.

    The other is a young gay man who volunteers regulary at a food bank and toy libary.

    Now which one of these people do you want teaching your kids maths?

    I’ve got more of these, if you like.

  77. Both do volunteer work. One of them is on the organising committe of the Pride Parade.

  78. They’re both equally qualified then. Now answer mine.

  79. “Now answer mine.”

    I don’t know if I can. Are you going to again alter your post after I have already responded?

  80. Nup. I added the second hypothetical before realising you’d responded. Anyway, are you going to answer either of those? I answered yours.

  81. (It’s alright, I doubt you will, because you can’t: of course you don’t have any explanation for how someone’s sexuality impacts on their ability to teach – there is none.)

  82. “What difference does the maths teacher’s private life make to their ability to teach?”

    Teaching is about more than the delivery of the curriculum.

    Teachers in many cases are role models. They should set an example that the young abd impressionable should be attempting to either live up to or surpass.

    Thus teachers shouldn’t be going to gangbangs.

  83. So you think that “do you go to gangbangs?” is an appropriate question for a school to be asking prospective teachers?

    In any case, gangbang-attendance is in no way the issue of this post, which is about organisations – like some schools – wanting to be permitted to discriminate against people seeking employment on the grounds of their gender or sexuality. You’re yet to give any reason why that should be acceptable, or why someone’s gender or sexuality in any way affects their ability to teach, for example, maths.

  84. By the way, you didn’t answer my hypothetical. Which teacher did you prefer?

    (My answer is: they’re equally qualified, but you’re the one who thinks someone’s private life determines how well they can teach.)

  85. Actually Jeremy, Turtle may have answered you hypothetical. He would prefer the gay teacher, as the straight teacher enjoys gang bangs (or casual sex, anyway).

  86. “So you think that “do you go to gangbangs?” is an appropriate question for a school to be asking prospective teachers?”

    No it’s probably a little bit blunt. However if special intrest schools are able to continue to employ staff by drawing from candidates within there own community, it increases the likelihood that they will employ someone who genuinely shares the same values. So if gang bangs are considered as a no no by the special intrest school community then there is no need to ask that question.

    As for your outrageous hypothetical scenario I wont bother answering it because it is off topic.

  87. To the real not hypothetical: the most inspirational for one of my subjects at school was assumed to be gay by 100% of the students. That was in a prestigious faith based school in the 70s. And our RE teacher was a semi-retired prof emeritus of a theological college who demanded students spend a year each on Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam.
    It is only the faith-based schools totally ignorant of the teachings of their own prophets that exhibit Turtle’s bigotry, especially as the Age quoted one as demanding their privileges re even cleaners. Such schools are better off claiming sheltered workshop status, because their flock, evidenced by the held beliefs, probably have difficulty finding jobs in the wider community.
    Women’s refuges are the sort of place where sexist employment practices are reasonable, and the only reasonable excuse for religious discrimination is for positions such as preacher.
    Both types of discrimination are appropriate for the position of mother superior, but even then transgender (to female) should not be disqualified.

  88. Turtle, when you can definitively equate group sex with someone who is gay, then you might have a point, IF we agree that engaging in group sex outside of school is somehow a disqualifying factor for teaching inside of it. Frankly, I consider anything that occurs between consenting adults outside of your place of employment nothing to do with it, but you clearly think differently.

    One of the best educators I ever knew(God rest her soul) was gay. I never knew, nor questioned her sexual practices, and to the best of my knowledge, no parent ever complained about her, nor would there have been any reason to suggest she was anything but a fantastic role-model for the students she taught, and the school she was a principal of.

    At the same time, we know of many educators who were Christian who have been charged and convicted of sexual assault of children in their care.

    Frankly, I’d risk my children with someone I know to be homosexual than someone who’s taken a vow of chastity any day. And that’s said as a Catholic.

  89. Ok, Turtle. My question (echoing Jeremy) was:

    “what conceivable impact on your child would their maths teacher’s private life have?”

    You say: “Have a look at the second comment on this thread” which is our much-discussed hypothetical about the Christian female & gay male maths teacher.

    You then say: “Everyone (who is honest) is going to choose the young Christian woman over the young gay man.” and “I am still waiting too for someone to HONESTLY answer my question.”

    So in other words, if people don’t express the same opinion as you they’re being dishonest? That’s a pretty extreme position to take. Personally, I think your point of view is utterly unreasonable, irrational and prejudiced – but I don’t doubt that you honestly hold it.

    My honest answer to your hypothetical: I don’t care. On the basis of the information you have given me, I can see no basis upon which to distinguish between them.

    Incidentally, your description of “a young gay man who likes clubbing, going to sauna’s for casual sex with other consenting men. He is also involved in organising committe of the Pride Parade” accurately describes one of my friends. Your description of “a young Christian woman. She is involved in her church and community and volunteers regulary at a food bank and toy libary.” accurately describes my girlfriend (apart from the toy library bit). Not only would both of these individuals make fantastic teachers, I think they would both be tremendously positive influences on any child’s life. Not because of their personal lives, but because they are both people of integrity, generosity and love who are always looking our for others.

    If you still think I’m being dishonest, you need to get out more.

  90. EDIT: The first point I was trying to make above is that you didn’t answer the question at all, merely posed another one. I would love you to spell out, in simple dot points, exactly what influence you think their maths teacher’s private life would have.

  91. “One of the best educators I ever knew(God rest her soul) was gay. I never knew, nor questioned her sexual practices,….” – Kerri 21 July, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Well then how did you know she was gay?
    She flaunt about telling the kids she was gay did she or did you just assume she was.

    And Tim your girlfriend sounds like a real catch. Treat her well.

  92. Turtle, let me be explicit: we knew she was gay, but we didn’t know what she got up to in her own time – any more than we knew what the straight teachers got up to in their spare time.

    What, have you now changed your position to “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

  93. For the record, and probably to Turtle’s chagrin, I’m one of those gay folk who actually has spoken out about irresponsible behaviour by the infinitely miniscule population (yes, idiots can be gay as much as they can be straight).

    I spoke out on Ten News when the last beat up about a ‘beat’ website was made — saying that police should (of course) police beats where they are causing a nuisance factor.

    A beat is harmful at 3.30pm in the afternoon in the local shopping centre. A beat is not harmful at a secluded location at 3am in the morning. And, yes, there is a need for SOPV venues to help divert people from beat use.

    Indeed, beat use is now miniscule. Most guys now visit SOPV venues.

    But, of course, Turtle’s logic falls over in a heap when he suggests that SOPVs should be closed. After all, if they did, it’d cause beat use to explode.

    Where would you rather have casual sex occur, Turtle? In an SOPV, or in a public toilet?

    Of course, I won’t get a sensible answer out of Turtle. That’s because Turtle is, simply, an unthinking bigoted moron.

  94. An SOPV for thoose of you who aren’t into the gangbang lifestyle or haven’t googled it like myself stands for “Sex On Premises Venue”.

    Interesting that Rod admit’s that if SOPV’s closed, well “if they did, it’d cause beat use to explode.”

    Why should they. Why do people have to have sex in public places?

    Rod asks…. “Where would you rather have casual sex occur, Turtle? In an SOPV, or in a public toilet?”

    Well neither really, instead how about your bedroom.

    You allow people to enter and explore your body but you wont invite them into your house?

  95. Turtle:
    You answer: “Well neither really, instead how about your bedroom.”

    Well, why don’t we ask these filthy heterosexual perverts, doing it at the beach in broad daylight why they aren’t doing it ‘at home’:
    http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20061216/news/005.shtml

    Are they doing it for the thrill factor?

    Now, the Post Newspapers story was a follow-up to a claim that there was ‘gay sex’ happening in the dunes. But it turned out to be a lie.

    “And it is exhibitionist heterosexual couples, not gay men, who are to blame for complaints about Swanbourne Beach…”

    Oh my!

    By the way, there are heterosexual SOPV events/parties/venues.

    Again, I ask: Is it better these people have a legal place where they can do these things and *not* intersect with the public, or would you have it in public where it can (and does) offend innocent people?

    Rational people say: “Let them do it in a safe environment, where they don’t hurt anyone.”

    Idiots like Turtle still can’t answer the question as to which is preferable — that’s because unthinking moralist bigots cannot see anything else but a black-and-white world in their moral absolutism.

  96. Rod you will notice in my original response to you I made no reference to the sexual persuasion of the perverts who go ‘dogging’ or go to ‘beats’ or attend ‘SOPV’s”

    I am fully aware that hetrosexual people can plumb the same depths of depravity as thoose who say attend male only gay sex events at a place such as Sircuit in Fitzroy.

    My question of course remains unanswered by a person who identifies as gay…… “Where are all the decent civic minded gay people who are speaking out about these type of venues and events? ”

    I doubt they exist if Rod is indicative of them.

  97. Well, as a spokesperson for a number of gay organisations, Turtle, I have had to speak out about beats and why they are problematic. I have done so on national TV. And yes, I came out against them.

    So, you know, your loss if you don’t like the message.

    But, just bringing it back to the point in question at the start of this whole topic: My partner is an excellent school teacher in a Catholic school.

    Why should he be sacked?

  98. Oh, and Turtle…

  99. I see you still haven’t answered my question, Turtle. And just to make the point again, since you haven’t addressed it:

    “At the same time, we know of many educators who were Christian who have been charged and convicted of sexual assault of children in their care.

    Frankly, I’d risk my children with someone I know to be homosexual than someone who’s taken a vow of chastity any day. And that’s said as a Catholic.”

    And just to re-iterate – you’ve yet to come up with one.single.difference between a straight person who has casual sex and a gay person who has casual sex, and why either person is not a fit teacher, or why any organisation should have a right to discriminate against either. All you’ve done is say “Well they have SEX IN PLACES OTHER THAN THEIR BEDROOM! And with PEOPLE OTHER THAN A GOD-APPROVED SPOUSE! And, horror of horrors! Sometimes with MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME!”

    Which proves nothing more than the fact that you hold a certain opinion. It doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.

  100. Kerri I have answered your question that the role of teacher is much more than actually teaching.
    Your idea that a teacher should have the ability to do whatever they like outside of school hours is nice in theory. But as the Homer Simpson quote goes….. “in theory communism works….in theory.”

    Oh and again you have restated your own predjuices against members of the Catholic church community. Bigot!

    And Rod re your comment….. “My partner is an excellent school teacher in a Catholic school. Why should he be sacked?”

    I don’t necessarily believe he should be sacked. The decision on who should be ‘sacked’ or employed should be up to your partner’s employer.

  101. Turtle:

    Well, that’s the point of the whole story — should any employer be able to arbitrarily sack someone for something that has ZERO to do with the job they perform?

    Indeed, due to the silly nature of the church, my partner is required to *lie* to retain his job.

    Which sin is worse? Which should matter? And, more importantly, what good is it when a teacher hides who they are? Not that my partner would tell, as he holds the ethic that it just doesn’t matter and it is his choice who he tells or not.

    So much for your claim that you can’t find a responsible gay person, Turtle. You now have two examples to contend with.

    So, back to more questions for the Turtle-meister, testing his moral absolutism: Which is better to teach kids at a school? A gay male (open or not) or a paedophile priest?

    Well?

    Teachers who are qualified

  102. Teachers who are qualified and apt to the job should be left to teach. Paedophile priests, on the other hand, should be locked up and the key thrown away — like all sick kiddy fiddlers.

  103. Can’t help but want to lighten up the “multiple simultaneous partners” thing with a recent XKCD called Threesome (I’ll transcribe it for the visually impaired – I’d hate to be discriminatory on this thread).

    A: We had a threesome last night.
    B: How was it?
    A: Awkward, it was with a physicist.
    B: Why was that awkward?
    A: They can’t solve the three-body problem.

    Therefore, it shouldn’t matter if your physics teacher is gay or not – because they won’t be into the multiple-simultaneous partner thingy Turtle finds so offensive.

    But would those with Turtle’s attitudes be well-educated enough to get the joke?

  104. Turtle’s problems with group sex have of course nothing to do with schools discriminating against gay people.

    Quick, Turtle! Change the subject again!

  105. Jeremy: after all… changing the subject helps you when you need to know…

  106. “So much for your claim that you can’t find a responsible gay person, Turtle. You now have two examples to contend with.”

    You mean you – Rod, who is a supporter of gang bang bars and grope mazes and your partner who by your own admission is a liar.

  107. I love how Mr Turtle has resorted to ad hominem, because he can’t answer the question.

    My partner has never lied, he’s never told. 🙂 There is a big difference. And, yes, he’s moving to the state school system at the end of this year because of the fact he wants to be able to live with something called freedom *from* discriminatory laws.

    He wants to be covered and protected by the law.

    The law that is the very topic of the original post.

    What a noble man, to leave the system of duplicity and hypocrisy because a church is run by small-minded men, with even smaller-minded ideals about what is decent.

    Discrimination is never decent. Why do you subscribe to it? Why should churches not have to comply with the civil law of society? Why should churches, moreover, be given an exemption from a MINIMUM standard of behaviour that we expect in society?

    Why do we allow churches to exercise petty, immature and hateful bigotry?

    Why, indeed!

  108. Quick, Turtle, change the topic! I mean, you tried to mischaracterise the gays to win…

    It is clear you need more help on…

  109. Is the youtube video different each time?

    Because I have already watched it once.

    If not why have you posted it so many times?

    Oh cos a gay man is challenged…. quick post some pro homosexual propaganda.

  110. We’re not laughing with you, Turtle.

    But, back to the points at hand. Care to answer any of the questions?

    Also, care to retract your clear misrepresentation of my position as contained in your ad hominem attack?

    Do I need to use shorter words, just for you?

  111. Funny, Turtle STILL hasn’t given any way in which a teacher being gay in any way impacts on his or her ability to teach a child.

  112. Well Rod I am not going to allow myself to get into a protracted fight with you.

    Were not going to resolve anything and you have started getting nasty so that’s it.

    Please don’t engage again with me on this thread.

  113. Hello?! Hello? Turtle? Are you going to show us any way in which a teacher being gay in any way impacts on his or her ability to teach a child?

    Remember, this thread is about schools and other organisations wanting to be permitted to discriminate against people simply for being gay. You think that’s okay. Why?

  114. Actually, Turtle, you were the non-intellectual that dragged it into the gutter with the ad hominem attack, viz: “Rod, who is a supporter of gang bang bars and grope mazes and your partner who by your own admission is a liar”

    But thank you for admitting you have been unable to answer any of my questions, viz:

    “Where would you rather have casual sex occur, Turtle? In an SOPV, or in a public toilet? (You attempted to answer, but it wasn’t an answer as to where casual sex should be directed to)

    Is it better these people have a legal place where they can do these things and *not* intersect with the public, or would you have it in public where it can (and does) offend innocent people?

    My partner is an excellent school teacher in a Catholic school. Why should he be sacked?

    Indeed, due to the silly nature of the church, my partner is required to *lie* to retain his job. Which sin is worse? Which should matter? And, more importantly, what good is it when a teacher hides who they are?

    Which is better to teach kids at a school? A gay male (open or not) or a paedophile priest?

    Discrimination is never decent. Why do you subscribe to it? Why should churches not have to comply with the civil law of society? Why should churches, moreover, be given an exemption from a MINIMUM standard of behaviour that we expect in society?

    Why do we allow churches to exercise petty, immature and hateful bigotry?

    Do I need to use shorter words, just for you?”

    Oh, wait… scratch the last question. The answer was rhetorical.

    But it’s okay. Take your bat and ball, and (like the church) act like a petulant child who can’t play by the rules when your bigotry is exposed.

    “Wahhhh… the evil homo beat me up, I’m going to up stumps because I am being thrashed…”

    🙂

    Maybe the point you need to understand is that I’m a human, and a thinker, and an atheist… and just happen to be gay. I’m not a gay man.

    Ker-plunk! You’re so not a winner right now! 🙂

  115. Jeremy:

    It’s because people who happen to be teachers also happen to be gay sometimes. Apparently it doesn’t matter — nor should it.

  116. Because special intrest schools and organisations need to protect there brand and ensure that they have like minded people representing them and working towards a shared vision.

    So for example I would argue that Collingwood football club only hire Collingwood members, supporters or thoose sympathetic with the vision of Collingwood football club.

    By employing a Carlton member at the home of the Magpies they risk diluting the overarching goal of the club.

  117. Of course, Mr Turtle can’t splutter that out, so around and around and around we go with him, as he constantly tries to change topics, trying to build that triangle of an argument.

    He’s not really up with the whole critical thinking!

    Meanwhile, another element to add to this debate: Discrimination in Victoria is unlawful not only on the basis of sexual orientation, but also ‘lawful sexual activity’. [Reference: Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic), s.4] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa1995250/s4.html

    Namely, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of: “lawful sexual activity” which is defined as “engaging in, not engaging in or refusing to
    engage in a lawful sexual activity.”

    Poor little Turtle has a conundrum now. Being caught doing illegal things at a public toilet is unlawful sexual activity. But a group gang bang at the local SOPV is quite lawful.

    Turtle: Why should your social mores be used to determine who should, and should not, lose their job — given that lawful sexual activity is, surprise surprise, lawful?

    If it is lawful, if it is legal, why should someone lose their job?

    If it is unlawful sexual activity, it is currently quite legal to sack someone, deny them opportunities, discriminate in accommodation or the provision of services, etc, etc.

    So, where does your silly argument stand now? Why does some lawful sexual activity deserve discrimination, and others not?

    More questions for the Turtle, it seems 🙂

  118. Turtle: That is arrant nonsense and you know it. Let’s take another example. What if a netball supporter applies for a job at the Magpies? Are they unsuitable? Surely if they’re applying for the job, they are offering their service and diligence to the task at hand, and the shared goal at that organisation?

    If a netballer is acceptable, then why not a tennis supporter? Or a Richmond supporter?

    You are making the assumption that someone who is paid to perform a task is unable to delineate that which they do in their private life. That’s assuming the person has no ethics.

    Of course, people do have ethics, and can do work to achieve a goal. If they were not — like the netballer working for the footy club — then they’d be sacked not because they support netball, but because they can’t do the job and are performance managed out of the job as being unable to perform the task.

    Similarly, a teacher who happens to be gay — just like a teacher who happens to be straight — should be allowed to teach because that’s their job: teaching.

    If they are doing something other than teaching in their private life, that’s their business. If they are not performing the functions to which they are engaged under their employment contract, then the problem is not that they’re gay or straight, but not doing the job of teaching.

  119. Indeed, a very good example of how ethics and the workplace go hand-in-hand is the fact that we have governments that change all the time, but the public servants are expected (under ethics codes) to work for whichever government is in power.

    That’s because they’re public servants — not Labor, or Liberal, or Greens, or whatever. Indeed, the code of ethics for every State Government I’ve ever worked for has required one to comply with a strict code of political impartiality.

    Under your ‘footy club’ claim, you would make the assumption you have to sack every single public servant from their jobs every time there’s a change of government — because you assume they can’t keep their personal political viewpoints from influencing their job in service to the government of the day, whatever persuasion it might be.

    Public servants are required to abide by ethics so that such conflicts do not exist, and even have to do work they don’t personally believe in, because that’s their job, and their paid to do a job that achieves the vision or policy outcome that is of a government they may vehemently disagree with.

    But, you know, that’s ethics.

    Do you understand ethics, Turtle? Do you understand people can have ethics, and act ethically, despite disagreeing with something?

    Just like those Catholic school teachers who happen to be gay, and who happen to stay in the closet, because their ethics state they’re there to be a teacher first… and only a teacher!

  120. “Because special intrest (sic) schools and organisations need to protect there (sic) brand and ensure that they have like minded people representing them and working towards a shared vision.”

    What exactly is this “shared vision” that has anything to do with teachers’ sexuality?

    In what way would a straight math’s teacher’s sexuality be relevant to the teaching of maths?

  121. “Oh and again you have restated your own predjuices against members of the Catholic church community. Bigot!”

    I AM a member of the Catholic Church, Turtle. stated that quite openly. Exactly how am I prejudiced against it? I stated nothing more than a fact: Churches of all denominations – including the Catholic church – have been plagued by paedophiles in its education system. No such case can be made against homosexual teachers.

    I’m not sure what a “predjuice” is, but it sounds kind of dirty.

    And my name only has one R in it, Turrrtle.

  122. I’m just fascinated by what “values” Turtle thinks these schools are teaching that would be contradicted by the maths teacher being gay.

    Go on, Turtle – specify.

  123. Sorry for spelling your name incorrectly Keri. Little bit juvenile you driving home the point by deliberately mispelling my choice of name on this thread.
    As Jeremy pointed out with his clever insertion of the term ‘sic’ in one of my quotes, I am a very poor speller (I had a lot of gay teachers when I was at school).

    Also Jeremy when using ‘sic’ I believe you are meant to use square brackets (a straight teacher taught me that).

    But anyway as evidenced you now appear to be waiting for a ‘gotcha’ moment.
    I have clearly explained my views and reasoning on why institutions should be able to employ the people they wish.

    Were not going to agree so until you come up with somthing fresh and reasonable that requires my comment – I am going to opt out of this thread.

    take care

    Turtle

  124. ‘I have clearly explained my views and reasoning on why institutions should be able to employ the people they wish. “

    No, you haven’t given any example of what “values” these kids are being taught that’s threatened by gay teachers, and thereby you’ve utterly failed to give any reason why employers should be permitted to discriminate against them on those grounds.

    “I am going to opt out of this thread.”

    Yeah, better quit while you’re a long, long way behind. You’re just going to make a fool of yourself now you’ve been called on the central bullshit of your “argument”.

  125. Hi there again. Really like the video put up on this thread. An excellent summary of Turtle’s thinking. Unfortunately none of the arguments given to him (?) will sink in or have any effect – much as I want to believe that people have ‘redemptive moments’. I mean – what would you expect of someone who blames gay teachers for his bad spelling, quotes Homer Simpson seriously, and accuses someone of getting nasty after having called everyone else pro-atheist, pro-dogging, pro-group sex perverts and assumes I suppose that each of the latter are in some way linked?

  126. If Turtle believes religious and/or private schools are allowed to hire teachers who ‘share their vision’ (which I presume means only hetero teachers), then Turtle must also support a white supremacist’s right to only hire white teachers.

    After all, it’s sharing the Aryan vision.

  127. WTF!!!!!

    What and where are these white supremacist schools?

    You’re an absolute goose Tom.

  128. I for one can think of many schools that believe that one race is qualitatively superior to all others in the eyes of their JHWH deity

  129. Turtle, I wrote that if you think principals are allowed to hire teachers on the basis on sharing a vision, then what’s to stop a white supremacist and religious principal from not hiring any qualified non-white teachers?

  130. Returned Man

    I thought Turtle said he was opting out of his thread.

    Nellie Melba, John Farnham … what is it with Aussies and coming out of retirement?

  131. Yeah I know but that comment from Tom……

    The guy is an absolute whiny shrill.

    I have often looked at the fools blog and it’s downright embarrasing. He reminds me of the tosspot that hangs around the so called cool kids at school the way he refers to himself as a ‘grods solider’ in the vain attempt that he is leveraging off the grods.com website.

    Spooky.

  132. And yet you’re incapable of answering his question.

    Still, ad hominems really are about all you’re left with on your side.

  133. Well, he also has that “how to always win” video, showing his thought processes.

  134. Turtle, at least when somebody asks me a question I can answer them. All you can do is try to link gays with group sex, as if that had anything to do with the subject of Jeremy’s post.

  135. Rod do you get a penny or somthing every time someone views that video or somthing?

    I mean your still rabbiting on about it. Pathetic.

  136. DO you get one every time you ignore a valid question?

  137. Jeremy:

    Maybe one of his imaginary fairies gets its wings.

    Note, I don’t have wings 🙂

  138. Pingback: One test for whether a Bill is worthwhile or not: CTFM opposition = almost certainly a good thing « An Onymous Lefty

  139. Pingback: Reminding us why ALP inactivity is preferable to Liberal Party destructiveness | An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s