"We are a society, not an economy..."

[Andre S]

Hi All,

The wifey and I were listening to a Sydney breakfast talk radio station via audio streaming last night. We are still in Johannesburg chewing our nails impatiently.

There was much talk about the referendum and it seemed the Labour Party has most of the popular support so far. Howard was described as being "tricky" on a few of the website blurbs. I don't get the idea that Australians hold back on their opinions like the Canadians! They seem opinionated like us South Africans.

What stood out for me was the discussion about a billboard outside a school somewhere in Sydney which read: "We are a society, not an economy."

For those who can remember a certain Mrs Margaret Thatcher, she said there was no such thing as a society, only individuals. That was also the start of the materialisation of the UK.

We touched on the idea of "Americanisation" and materialisation of Australia under a thread about the "Tall Poppy Syndrome". I have heard Howard described sneeringly as the president of Australia inc.

Any thoughts on this? Do you think it would be better or worse for immigrants to have a Labour government in power? Will Medicare be more accessible and improved? Will labour succeed in revitalising the "fair dincum" principle?

André S.

[Aramat]

good post, would also like to know the answers to the questions you posted.

Do you think it would be better or worse for immigrants to have a Labour government in power? Will Medicare be more accessible and improved? Will labour succeed in revitalising the "fair dincum" principle?

For us one of the many reasons for choosing Oz over other countries is the "fair dincum" principle.

[Springbok]

oh, politicians, schmoliticians... to generalise, the Coalition (Howard) is favoured by whitecollar people while Labor (Rudd) is favoured by the working class. And all this talk about what Howard did/didn't/will do for the economy and interest rates, etc., is BS. Neither Howard nor Rudd can keep interest rates down even if they wanted to.... the global economy dictates that.

In some ways, Australia is almost like a mini-America, yet uniquely Australian. Personally I don't care too much about politics, so cannot really answer your questions. Maybe I'll care more in 2 years' time when I will be eligible to vote.

PS - the Australian Labor (spelled without the "u") Party (ALP) is Australia's oldest political party, formed in 1891 and thus more than a century old. It is more than 50 years older than the Liberal Party. During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name 'Australian Labour Party' was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both 'Labor' and 'Labour', however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement.

http://www.alp.org.au/

http://www.liberal.org.au/

[Enrica]

For my 2 cents worth, any Labour Government would be a problem in any country. I think those of you in industry in SA know what Labour Unions can do to any business. The same thing here. So far the economy under the Liberal Governement has been fantastic. I personally dont like any politician , but as far as I am concerned a Labour Governement would be a problem for small and big business.

I think its a bad thing when the Unions can dictate to any Goverment or Business big and small.

So I know whom I won't vote for on Saturday.

[Andre S]

Springbok, thanks for the backround on the Labor movement. I found it quite ironic to note that Australians chose the American spelling I must admit, I don't know nearly enough about Australian politics yet!

As for unions, I don't think they are to be feared by the little guy. America is large enough to operate the free market system effectively, you can move to one of the other 49 states if your local economy isn't working for you, forcing companies to be competitive. Even America has labour regulation and very powerful (corrupt ) unions.

During my radical student days I flirted with the idea of libertarian economic principles but have since then seen the effects of a free wheeling free market system in the new South Africa.

A visit to France about two years ago, gave me more hope as they appear to have decided to run their country as a society, rather than a cut throat "let them sink or swim" capitalist economy. If you don't like the French way, you can bugger off out of their country.

Let's face it, capitalism is great when you are on the team that is winning, and the way things are going, the global corporations are gathering all the control. The irony is that corporatisation of the free market only leads to a more radical loss of individual libery and freedom. If there is only one large employer, you can't exercise your option of exploiting the principle of competition.

Personally, I don't mind subsidising the poor and elderly to have free medical care or good schooling. In the end, I win because there will be fewer socio economic problems leading to crime. Paying it forward...

Andre S.

[Nilo]

Hi Guys,

I haven't got a cooking clue as to who what where etc yet, well where Aussie Politics are concerned. Gotta be here a while first to see what's what! I do however find the advertising very ineresting and a little humoristic to say the least!!LOL!

Is is not great to live in a country that has so little problems that they have to use intrestrates rising and the fact that Mr Howard will be resigning during his "reighn" as a tool for swinging votes! How about, "Australian working families have never been better off" bill boards. (For those of you now here yet, Mr Howard said that a few months ago, now Mr Rudd is using it because he says it's not true)

Personally, I do like the socialistic idea, all is equal, but then that also has it's flaws doesn't it!

However, I have been told that if Labor is in Parliament, the Liberals are in the States and visa versa.

Very interesting in deed.

N

[Bob]

I've seen every election in Australia since Gough (pronounced "Goff") Whitlam became the first Labour Prime Minisiter in Australia for 23 years.

That was in late 1972.

The Liberals (or more correctly, the Conservatives) had held power since 1949 up until then.

I've voted for both sides of politics.

I've been a staunch Labor man for fifteen years in my time. . . . local branch secretary, local Electoral delegate, Union delegate, State Conference delegate, etc. . . . but I have been disappointed with the direction that the party was heading.

I believe in a society where we take care of those who can't look after themselves . . . . the war widows, the handicapped, the sick and the old.

I feel that a society has a duty to care for these people, not just let them be forgotten.

However, I felt that the Australian labor Party was humanitarian in its principles, not Christian.

It legislated to allow for homosexual rights. The next item on the Gay agenda in this regard is for homosexual "couples" to be able to adopt little children. To me, the rights and welfare of children are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness to appease a very articulate and vocal group (the "Squeaky wheel" principle)

Personally, I believe that all children should have the fundamental right to both a male and a female role model if at all possible in their upbringing.

I have seen the Labor Party take the populist approach to Nuclear Power and put bans on new mining for Uranium in Australia, and have no nuclear power stations built for power in this country.

Instead, over the past 30 years, we've had coal-fired power stations belching out thier CO2 and pollution which add to global warming and are likely to push the only planet which nurtures Life (planet Earth) into an Ice Age!

Now the party is "re-considering" its outlook.

It seems in many areas of policy it wants to "re-invent the wheel"

The Bible, written by the Ancients millenia ago, has a blueprint for people to follow, but Labor keeps reinventing the wheel with each and every generation only to discover some of the Bible's fundamental truths when the damage is done.

These and other areas of policy have caused me to resign my place in the Party.

The Libs have done fantastically well economically over the past 11 years, largely because of the reforms put in place by the previous Labor administrations of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.

I feel that even the drover's dog could have made it good on the sharemarket over the past 11 years, but I still feel that the Libs have guided Australia well over their period at the wheel.

I wish that more money had been put into Medicare to cater for the increasing demand on the public health system with Australia's ageing population, especially as 85% of the "health" dollar is spent in the last 3 years of a person's life.

I have lived thro and been witness to a few of Australia's changes.

The 1975 Constitutional Crisis where the Australian Governor General (being the Queen's representative) had to sack the Labor gov't of the day because it couldn't get its finances passed thro parliament to pay for the running of the country for the next financial year.

Labor is using that as an excuse to change Australia's constitution that has served this nation well for over one hundred years.

It wants to abolish the position of Governor General and put in a President.

To me, this is all cosmetic, because at the end of the day, if you have a crisis in government, and the country grinds to a halt, you must have a mechanism that resolves this situation.

The old constitution we have at the moment did this, by throwing the crisis back to the Australian people to vote on who or what they wanted.

Simple!

I've seen the growth of multi-culturalism.

This seems great, but long-term, I've yet to see it benefit too many countries. Some groups don't take ownership of the welfare of all other groups within the country and you tend to get one culture dictating the agenda at the expense of the others. Not the best policy, in my opinion.

I do thank the Liberals for not introducing more and more political correctness and populism in their terms of office.

I don't thank them for not taking global warming seriously enough.

At my stage in life, I tend to vote not so much for my own personal well-being, but for what sort of Australia I want my kids and their kids (if and when they have any?) to inherit in the next fifty years.

I want a secure Australia, an Australia where they can walk down any street in any city without being attacked for being white, for being able to secure any job (private or government) simply because they are the best for the job . . . . and many others.

I am honoured to have been given the right to vote at every Australian election since I was 21 and vote for a party that I thought truly represented my aspirations and candidates who I felt could identify with me.

[Andre S]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your informative and passionate post re Australian politics. I respect your position, especially because you are a "real" Australian born citizen and I do enjoy your other postings.

It is always a bad idea to discuss sex, politics or religion and we seem to have managed to combine all three. At the risk of offending you and others, I would like to comment on behalf of those not represented under the umbrella of "normal". Please don't take it personally, let's debate it rationally.

I support people's right to choice of religion and beliefs. I don't however support the idea that the government should have Christian or Muslim principles for that matter. Separation of church and state is absolutely non negotiable for me. Apartheid, as you probably know, is what has come back to bite us white South Africans in the butt, which is why we are now looking for greener pastures. The irony is that the Apartheid state was very much a Christian institution. Our government education system was called "National Christian Education" or something to that effect. The government's misguided handling of "non whites" was backed up by certain interpretations of the Bible. The NG church leader was in many ways almost an equal to the state president. Many of these clerics have since then had an attack of conscience and have asked the black community for forgiveness. The whole issue hinges on human rights and humanitarian principles which were lacking in the church and state's approach at the time. I believe Jesus was a humanitarian, so in my mind one should ask yourself, "what would Jesus do" rather than "what is the church's opinion on this matter". The God of the old testament is very different from the one in the new testament of the Christian Bible.

The homosexual debate is another prickly subject which in my mind has more to do with ignorance than anything else. I don't believe Jesus would have treated gays as badly as Christian communities have done throughout history. I recall Jesus washing the feet of a prostitute, which was a lesson to his followers and something that was very controversial at the time. For me this is a stong indication that Jesus was a humanitarian because he didn't judge the woman's life style but simply treated her with love and respect.

I am a heterosexual, married male and I was also very homophobic once. I put that down to society's expectations of how I should approach the gay issue. Looking back, I am ashamed of my misguided preconceptions. As I said, it has a lot to do with ignorance. One could as a Christian say that the Lord works in mysterious ways - my path crossed with gay people through my wife who had a gay friend from university. He is now probably our best friend. He is quite normal, an advocate, owns a townhouse, drives a VW Polo, enjoys food and holidays and has had the same partner for almost six years. ("If you prick me, do I not bleed..yada yada...Shakespeare's Shylock.)

Once you get to know the people behind the label, the whole situation is quite normal and you realise that your own judgements are dated. Our gay friend is a more reliable friend and has more depth than any of the "straight" couples I know. Perhaps that's a function of enduring hardship, which tends to build character. The main thing is not to over think the mechanics of homosexuality. Same sex doesn't make sense to me, but then I know that NOTHING will turn our friend straight. Having accepted him as gay, I couldn't imagine him with a female partner. I wish he and his partner would make it official, but I must admit I would also do not like to call it "marriage" which in my mind is a traditional cultural ritual. What gay people get up to in their bedrooms is none of our business just like it's none of our business what heterosexual couples get up to.

I have no doubt that our gay friend and his partner would be excellent parents to an adopted child. There are millions of little children who get sexually abused by their own "straight" fathers or who get beaten and hurt by socalled "normal" parents. And as for the Christian church, it has way too many examples of child abuse, paedophilia and other horrible sexual deviations on record. I remeber reading of a Pope who bedded his own daughter and produced offspring. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I fully support Howard's call to immigrants to blend in and partake in "the Australian way". I'm happy to note that the Australian government isn't allowing Muslim extremists to dictate how things are done. If I understand it right, Howard says "adapt or get out". He however has too many things in common with George W. Bush and the eroding of humanitarian principles is a problem for me. Christian fundamentalism scares me almost as much as Muslim fundamentalism. The Labor guys are looking better and better to me.

"Fair Dincum" is a national identity unique to Australia. My understanding is that it is humanitarian in nature, a belief structure and social code developed by generations of Australian ancestors. It probably started out as a survival strategy among convicts or perhaps a reaction against English colonial exploitation? I don't see any religious strings attached. Sounds like Ubuntu, which is also a great principle if we could only apply it here in South Africa.

Looks like Labor for me so far.

André S.

[Annette]

Andre, you make some very good points, but I won't go too much into them now, it's late and almost bedtime for me. However, I want to give you a bit of my observations relating to your original question / statement:

I haven't seen said billboard anywhere around here in Adelaide, but I can give you an idea of why that slogan was used - The current Liberal (a misnomer if ever there was one!) government is using the strong Australian economy as their main platform for re-election. In my opinion it shows just how out of touch they currently are and just how they underestimate the intelligence of the Australian people. Most people would be able to see that the current strength of the economy is starting to affect Joe Bloggs and his family in mostly negative ways: Business owners and managers are doing very well, while job insecurity has never been so high due to the current government's Industrial relations laws. The rich are getting much richer while the poor get much poorer, as in any strongly capitalist economy. House prices rise, no one can enter the housing market any more. Strong economy = more spending = unprecedented levels of household debt. The much lauded Australian work-life balance is something relegated to the mists of time (I have certainly never seen any of it in the almost 2 years I've been here, in fact, I have never seen people work so hard or such long hours). Rampant materialism is rapidly smashing the (also mythical as far as I can see) Australian egalitarianism into smithereens. Etc. etc. and so I can go on.....

and yes, the Fair Dunkum principle certainly does need revitalising, because I have seem some pretty shocking exploitation since I've arrived here.

I think a lot of people (and I see it every day in the people I speak to) are getting fed up with being ignored as human beings, instead of being referred to collectively as successful as a country because of the strength of the economy, hence the "we are a society not an economy" comment. A lot of people are also concerned about John Howard's closeness to George W, his stance on Kyoto, his opinions on the Iraq conflicts, the poor image that he has in many European contries because of his poor record on industrial relations, asylum seekers and aboriginal affairs (he refuses to apologise to indigenous Australians, for instance, for past wrongdoings against them).

I don't know whether "immigrants" will be better or worse off under any particular government. I'm not sure that a Labor government will be radically different to the current one, but I have been impressed with Kevin Rudd's intelligence. He is a very well educated, read and travelled person. However, I have been even more impressed with his deputy, Julia Gillard.

[moegeploeg]

Bob, I like your thinking. Most interesting are the issues at stake, who ever wins, the country will be better off. As long as they follow through on their promises. I like the Liberals stance against outside influences. "You will obey the government, you will learn the English language, you will live by Christian principles, or leave the country!" (or something like that)

Anyway, I have much to learn............

[Enrica]

All said and done, the Labour Party will not be so free and easy with allowing all these migrant workers into Australia and taking jobs away from Dinkum Die Aussies Blah Blah. So if you are hoping and applying for a job sponsorship , things could change at the drop of a hat.

The Liberal party has hi-jacked Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Parties princples of Australia for Australians etc etc and closing the doors to certain groups so thats nothing new.

But in all fairness to the Liberals , they have been good for this economy.

We shall see what happens on Saturday.

[Legalbuff]

In what way, Enrica?

Obviously, many of us on the forum are in the process of applying for either 457 of 176 visas, and obviously hoping for job sponsorship? If there is such a skill shortage in the country as is so widely reported, why will the politics of the day change that if getting the skilled employees in place will be good for the already great economy?

[ystervarkie2006]

Thanks for your opinions Bob!

Very well put!

My 10c worth (not that I can vote anyway): If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I like Howard's stance on many issues, I like the fact that he is a PM and not a President, I like the fact that he bought back most hand guns in Aus.

And as South African immigrants are generally white collar, I'm sure the Coalition is favoured on this forum.

I feel as though Rudd's entire campaign has been to negatively attack Howard. ?Mateship? He seems like a very negative person.

This may be petty, but I think I would rather have a dude who takes morning walks every day than a dude who goes to strip joints on overseas trips holding the reins to this nation.

Good luck John!

[Bob]

Andre,

I am glad that you've chosen to be a good mate to a gay bloke, married and heterosexual as you are.

It's important that gay blokes have friends among the heterosexual community.

I've had this very same discussion with my mates. One mentioned that he knew a gay bloke and that he was a "great bloke", implying by this that his lifestyle couldn't be that bad!

I mentioned that I also happened to know a murderer (having done 15 years in gaol and was now out). . . also a good bloke.

Perhaps we should also condone murder.

I'm in my mid-fifties now and have seen a few things come and go, a few ideas come and go and trends come and also go, in my time.

I also have a 24 year old son.

If my son, Bobby, were to come to me and state that he were in a homosexual relationship, he'd still be my son and I'd still be his dad.

However, I'd be compelled to state some salient facts about the lifestyle that he'd chosen and leave him with the consequences.

At least he couldn't come back to me later on in life and say I hadn't told him the repercussions of a certain lifestyle.

I'd mention that the Gay Rights movement came out of California in the 1960s, that a number of young blokes were involved in the whole movement.

Where were all these young blokes nowadays?

Dead . . . . all of them, except one!

Dead because of disease.

AIDS. . . . and various other sexually transmitted diseases that made their way thro the gay community.

The homosexual community in San Fancisco and the rest of the western world was devestated by AIDS in the early 1980s.

I still remember the adverts on the TV here in Australia, largely aimed at the Gay community.

Now . . . I don't know about you, but I'd sooner my son started to smoke cigarettes and take the consequences of that behaviour because I'd put his chances of seeing his Old Age Pension a lot greater!

If homosexuality were a good, wholesome lifestyle for a young bloke to pursue, how come so many have died of disease??

The truth of the matter is that it is not a wholesome lifestyle otherwise they wouldn't have died like flies with the onset of HIV.

Homeosexuals also are a particularly articluate and vocal group that have come to influence the western world in the past 40 years. They state their points very well.

However, I happen to believe in a God . . . an "intelligence" . . . that has made this world and has a blueprint for a successful behaviour for us all to follow.

We can try various lifestyles, but in the end, there are few lifestyles that are wholesome and give us fulfilment right thro to the end of our lives.

If others choose to live a particular way, that is alright with me to a point, but don't assume that I condone their behaviour and support their choice.

I believe that I would be betraying my son if I didn't love him enough to tell him the consequences of his behaviour.

I don't agree with kids being taken into adoption by homosexual couples.

I just happen to think that children have a basic right, wherever possible, to a male and a female role model. I believe this will give them the best guide in life to whom they choose to marry and commit themselves to.

Also, the probability of children taking up a homosexual lifestyle out of choice would be far greater in that upbringing . . . . with the consequences to follow.

The Labor Party is committed to equal rights for Gays.

On the surface, that seems an admirable position. I still believe however that if you lower the status of a committed relationship between a man and a woman (marriage) to that being equal to any other relationship, then sooner or later you've got to bring in a word that reflects the unique dynamics between a committed man to a woman.

There is little better environment in this world for bringing up kids in, flawed as marriages may be.

To end this, I'd like to state that if you're ever in Adelaide, you'd be welcome to come and have a drink with me or drop in for a cuppa tea at my place.

I value people who have outlooks and opinions that don't reflect my own, but still challenge me.

[alanb]

Andre S - I love your thinking and agree with you on just about everything. Thanks for speaking up.

Bob, I'm going to assume that your analogy comparing murderers and homosexuals was a shot of humour. I also don't know where you got your mortality figures from, on a visit to San Francisco about two years ago I found it teaming with a whole lot of very nice people who I swear aren't heterosexual. Its not homosexuality that causes disease, it's the practice of unsafe sex. The two are mutually exclusive. The fact that certain homosexuals appear to be less inclined to practice safe sex is another issue. Just as taking drugs intravenously doesn't give you HIV, using infected needles does. Frankly, if women had the same certain hormonal levels as men there would be a whole lot more promiscuous heterosexual activity going on resulting in just as high numbers of STDs as in the gay community. As a heterosexual, in my younger days of pubbing and clubbing I found it much easier to practice safe sex than to stop smoking so I think I might go for the son who is smart enough to not smoke if I am forced to make a choice.

Marriage to me is about love, and if it happens to be between two men or two women I wish them well for having found such happiness together. The sun will still come up tomorrow morning if we let them call it marriage. The same goes for adoption, I could wish nothing less for any orphan than to live in a loving, nurturing environment. The notion of two "moms" or two "dads" is a strange one because of its novelty, but two loving moms or two loving dads makes more sense to me than one drunken dad and one drunken mom.

These issues are about whats best for the happiness of the people involved, not about whats best for observers who have prejudices.

Interesting thread.

Alan

Edited November 23, 2007 by alanb

[Guest nc74]

Hi Bob and ystervarkie - well said both of you!! If I were able I would have to say my vote would be for John Howard. I think he is fantastic! The problem with appologising is that it is HIGHLY probable that in a few years you'll have the same problem SA have right now. I'm not going to Aus to encounter the same or similar problems thank you!! The problem I see with the labour govt is LOOK AT THE UK. It seems to me they are all trying to run away to Aus because of the Labour party's loose laws on refugees and people who are unskilled and unable to speak English!!

I don't agree with homosexuality at all. I have homosexual friends. Love the sinner hate the sin. I dont' want to get into a theological debate with anyone but God clearly says in the old as well as new testament that homosexuality is a sin. Check Romans 1 v 26-27 for the new testament reference. If 2 men were supposed to raise children their genetic makeup would allow them to bear children. It would be natural. It is unnatural that is why they are unable to conceive and bring forth life. Same applies to 2 lesbians. They are unable to conceive without a man because it is unnatural. The reference to God being different in the new testament IMHO is also a little strange cos He says in His word that He is "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow". That clearly speaks of past, present and future. Jesus said "I never came to abolish the law but to uphold it". So God's law has not changed. If it had what good would the old testament be to us. Your bible might as well just be made up of the new testament.

Anyway like I said I don't want to get into a theological debate I just thought I would bring in another side to the issue.

Natalie

Edited November 23, 2007 by nc74

[NAL]

Hi All

Bob just to follow up on what you said about Christian principles, Australia was built on solid Christian principles, hence the reason for the fruits that it is bearing now and I thank Jesus that he has brought me to Australia and that is why I will be voting for the Christian Democratic Party tomorrow as it is the only party, (standing for elections), that is putting Christ first (see url below).

http://www.cdp.org.au/

Rudd claims he is a Christian, I firmly believe his spin doctors (and himself) do not want to openly admit this now, as they will upset the non Christian voters (Jewish, Hindu, Buddists and Muslim) not to mention the gay/ lesbian folks in Aus.

And Andre S and AlanB....always remember God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve....God loves the homo but not their sin, lets not be callus (hard skinned) and call SIN...SIN, lets not get desensitised to sin and make it seem all OK, the same goes for the planet.... it is all good to talk about carbon footprint and Kyoto protocol but what about the living beings that cannot talk or defend themselves and are destroyed for the sake of stem cell research...well the ALP is fully supporting stem cell research, selling their souls for votes.

God Bless

NAL

Proverbs 3:5-6

[Bob]

Alan,

you make the note that two loving mums or two loving dads is better than one drunken dad and a mum.

I'm afraid I wouldn't advocate any child to be adopted by any of the examples you've illustrated.

None of them are the best choices in my humble opinion, and kids deserve the best choice in a caring society . . . . a loving dad and a loving mum.

I'm the product of a fatherless family, my father having been in the War (WW2), and I always wish I'd known my dad better and had him around to play footie or cricket and have a rough & tumble with.

I was brought up by my grand-mother who loved me as best she could with what little she had.

I know about the need for a male and female role model, in particular, for boys as they develop into men.

Call it prejudice if you like.

I call it personal experience.

[Andre S]

Thank you to everyone who responded to this thread. Some of your posts ar very brave given that the world has become so PC.

I would rather live in a world where people have opinions than in a George Orwell nightmare where Big Brother tells you what you are allowed to say or think. I was in the UK in October and it is VERY regulated. I got the sense that people just tolerate a LOT of BS. Here's one: Muslim employees at Sainsburys are allowed to refuse to process your purchase of alcohol because it conflicts with their religion. The UK's PC policies have unfortunately created a society which is now at risk of literally blowing itself up because of religious intolerance. On that one I have to give Howard credit. Nip it in the bud. That's also unfortunately a function of colonialism. Payback is a bugger.

Bob, I really do respect your years of experience in Australia and intelligent posts which is why I like sparring with you all the more. Olive branch accepted. Come to think of it, it is a bit of verbal sparring with olive branches. Very PC. I was rather hoping you would post on the "Fair Dincum" thread as this is something I think you are most qualified to enlighten us on. You strike me as a fair person on the whole and I will definitely take you up on your offer of a cuppa tea if I'm in your neck of the woods. That's if the offer still stands...

Bob, I am relieved to see that you don't follow dogma slavishly. I hope you aren't just janking my chain by saying you are glad I'm a good mate to a gay bloke. We need to build bridges between communities I think. Fact is, HE is a good mate to a hetero couple and I haven't gone fishing with him or anything like that. I'm way too insecure for that and it hasn't come up, err, it wasn't raised...I'll leave it there. Jokes aside, I think we "straight" men find the whole thing intimidating. What would our mates say? OF COURSE I will go fishing with my friend if he wants to!

As I said before, it is none of our business what people get up to in their bedrooms. We are all products of our environment and cultural/belief structures under which we are raised, so we are doomed to have our own prejudices. It offends me however when people seem wilfully ignorant and try to arrogantly condemn everyone who doesn't fit under the umbrella of their normal. Bob, this isn't aimed specifically at you. I thought your comeback was mature, measured and reasonable. There is a general subtext here though.

I thought the relatively recent main stream movie "Broke Back Mountain" was a sensitive love story between two cowboys who had no choice in the matter. I squirmed when the two blokes did their thing in the tent... They fell in love but it was a forbidden love and they went and married women because that's what society expected from them. Needless to say this was unfair to the women. In the end the one gets killed by bigotted cowboys. Fact is, and this blows the SIN argument out of the water, gays are born gay. It isn't a choice. It would be equally unfair of us to be anti people who are born with disabilities. We all have the right to be treated as NORMAL. I think the reason people kick against this argument is that it implies that we all have the "gay gene" in our DNA to a more or lesser extent.

Bob, I hear what you are saying about wholesome life styles. Gay men do appear to be more promiscuous. That's their burden to bear. I don't like that either. I've heard of gay clubs where blokes do the dirty with any stranger in a darkened room in a group. There are however hetero swinger clubs where the same/similar things happen. Don't approve but not for me to judge sexuality based on some social deviances though. By that thinking, heterosexuality shouldn't be approved of either. Alanb pointed out very correctly that heterosexuals die of Aids every day. God didn't invent the disease to kill "sinners". If HE did, it would make HIM a sicko. Let's not make our own assumptions. Often innocent people die of Aids too.

What is a wholesome life style? I am also quite conservative by nature and I get what you are saying, but sadly the world has changed and continues to change. We have to keep up with the pace and respond appropriately. Today one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One has to be pragmatic and have the most advantagious long term strategy in a global PC context. A wise man, one J.R. Ewing from Dallas once said: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Gay bashing is only going to create victims and we may have to face "Gay Affirmative Action" one day if we continue to exlude this minority group. GAA! beware of the "Pink Dollar" though! This is a very powerful and sometimes ruthless minority too!

The Muslim extremists have their own views about women's rights and believe it's their religious right. I don't approve of their views myself because I don't understand them. Let's not allow religion to dictate our civil liberties! Let's be firm but also not bash Muslims. Imagine "Muslim Affirmitive Action". MAA! The UK already has "minority rights affirmative action" which puts minorities on top of the employment list because they have enough cause to cry victim.

Now that I have branded myself as the left wing "homo-hugger" of the forum (no offence intended to gay people), I have to say that I don't deserve all the accolades. I'm just a pragmatist. I promise you that I sometimes fight against my bigoted dark side but I recon everyone needs a fair go and I know no-one else was speaking up for gay readers of the forum. May my children be free of the prejudices I was indoctrinated with and may they have fewer inner conflicts. Perhaps we could hear from a spokesperson of the gay community? I think some embarrassment is in order right about now.

I found Annette's observations most relevant and interesting on the subject but more telling is that no one else has commented on them yet. Does that mean that everyone on this forum is well paid and the system is working well? My interest is with the financial/work system. I have been told by other South Africans that many of the corporates in Australia are cut throat but that Canadians don't live to work like the Americans because they prefer to have family life and can still afford to do so.

I haven't seen said billboard anywhere around here in Adelaide, but I can give you an idea of why that slogan was used - The current Liberal (a misnomer if ever there was one!) government is using the strong Australian economy as their main platform for re-election. In my opinion it shows just how out of touch they currently are and just how they underestimate the intelligence of the Australian people. Most people would be able to see that the current strength of the economy is starting to affect Joe Bloggs and his family in mostly negative ways: Business owners and managers are doing very well, while job insecurity has never been so high due to the current government's Industrial relations laws. The rich are getting much richer while the poor get much poorer, as in any strongly capitalist economy. House prices rise, no one can enter the housing market any more. Strong economy = more spending = unprecedented levels of household debt. The much lauded Australian work-life balance is something relegated to the mists of time (I have certainly never seen any of it in the almost 2 years I've been here, in fact, I have never seen people work so hard or such long hours). Rampant materialism is rapidly smashing the (also mythical as far as I can see) Australian egalitarianism into smithereens. Etc. etc. and so I can go on.....

and yes, the Fair Dunkum principle certainly does need revitalising, because I have seem some pretty shocking exploitation since I've arrived here.

I think a lot of people (and I see it every day in the people I speak to) are getting fed up with being ignored as human beings, instead of being referred to collectively as successful as a country because of the strength of the economy, hence the "we are a society not an economy" comment. A lot of people are also concerned about John Howard's closeness to George W, his stance on Kyoto, his opinions on the Iraq conflicts, the poor image that he has in many European contries because of his poor record on industrial relations, asylum seekers and aboriginal affairs (he refuses to apologise to indigenous Australians, for instance, for past wrongdoings against them).

I don't know whether "immigrants" will be better or worse off under any particular government. I'm not sure that a Labor government will be radically different to the current one, but I have been impressed with Kevin Rudd's intelligence. He is a very well educated, read and travelled person. However, I have been even more impressed with his deputy, Julia Gillard.

May the Force be with you all.

André S.

[Bob]

Thanks, Andre.

I respect the way in which you've chosen to think thro a number of issues . . . not just blindly accepted what has been stated by others. I think the key, though, is to look at the "fruits" of the argument.

In my day, Communism was the ideology that every intelligent person listened to and argued for or against.

It sounded perfectly plausible ("every man being equal . . .yada yada yada"), logical and well thought out.

However, the "fruits" of the Soviet lifestyle in Russia and eastern Europe didn't match the rhetoric. The Socialist nirvana was a non event, even years after it had been brought about. On my four times behind the Iron Curtain (East Germany & Yugoslavia), I saw people travelling by horse & cart still, in the country areas!

What I'm more inclined to do, is to look at the example that an argument brings about.

I don't always take on board everything that is plausible and logical and sounds great.

You can still be taken for a ride!

Anyhow . . . I write this on Election Day in Australia (Sat Nov 24th)

Whichever party I vote for I see pluses and minuses.

The older I get, the more sceptical I am because I have heard all the promises before, not always witnessing any delivery of their promises.

At the end of the day however, democracy may be a very inefficient mechanism of delivery, but it's the safest.

Dictatorships can deliver at the snap of a dictator's fingers, but getting them to deliver for the common good is something else.

Until a better mechanism comes along, I'll stick with the system in hand.

Wish us voters luck!

Edited November 24, 2007 by Bob

[Karen]

I agree with everything AlanB has to say.

My gay friends are the best two people I have ever known. I am so grateful that they have come into my family's life. We all love spending time with them and have the greatest times together.

I am so glad that they are now living such a free and open life here in Toronto, where gay marriage is totally accepted these days. ( My friends, however, do not wish to tie the knot and do not see the need to do so.) I believe in 'live and let live' and what people do behind closed doors, in noone's business but their own. It has certainly not hurt anyone here having gay couples tie the knot, or having them raise adopted sons and daughters. Gay folk do not ask to be born gay, anymore than we ask for blue eyes, or straight hair. People are just wired that way from the get go, and how anyone can see that as a sin, beats me. For heaven's sake, there are even gay animals, and are they sinners?!

I did not know that Canadians weren't opinionated like South Africans. After 14 years of living and working here, I think that they are extremely verbal about just about any issue and can debate things until the cows come home!

Edited November 24, 2007 by Karen

[JanCPT]

Hi All

I'm going to go out on a limb here

It seems that it is the trend that if you don't support certain topics, you are labelled as a "basher" & prejudiced

In my opinion, this is what leads to people only expressing PC opinions & views & is what is happening to us in SA as well - If you express an opinion which is contrary to the PC view, you are either labelled as a racist or an Uncle Tom

This seems to be the way that minority groups force their opinions on the majority - i.e. by comparing the counter opinion to something which is totally abhorrent and putting the counter party in the position where they feel they they are promoting the abhorrent, if they continue expressing their own opinion (which is a subtle but very effective form of censorship & the general public thereafter only gets to hear the PC view & becomes convinced that this is the generally accepted opinion)

I also have a number of gay friends & they know that, although I respect them as friends, I do not support their way of life & will not do anything to promote their choices in this regard, as it is contrary to my beliefs. When the topic comes up (which it seldom does), I express my views & they express their's

As far as the reference to Jesus washing the feet of the prostitute, this was an example of humility on His part - Although certain groups might like you to believe that by doing so He was acknowledging & accepting prostitution ( ... so if He can accept prostitution, why not homosexuality??)

He did not build her a brothel i.e. The principle involved in washing her feet, was one of respect for her as a person, not an acceptance of her actions

The reference to drunken father & broken hetrosexual marriages is also an attempt at making us feel that, if we don't accept gay parenting, we are promoting the fact that kids should grow up in broken homes - which is utter nonsense

I reject, and will do everything (legally) in my power to discourage / prevent:

1. homosexuality

2. kids growing up in broken homes (incl gay parenting)

3. prostitution

4. the Koran as a way of life and,

5. a couple of other things

Furthermore, although I don't expect every australian to agree with all my opinions, I do think that, in general, we have the same outlook on life (the fact that Howard felt comfortable in publicly expressing his opinion on a very contraversial issue, makes me even more secure in this)

I'm quite interested to hear the reaction .... basher, racist, prejudiced??

Cheers

jan

PS we are all prejudiced in almost every aspect of our lives - we prejudge things based on our experiences, knowledge & beliefs, which does not make it a bad thing

Edited November 24, 2007 by JanCpt

[Andre S]

Thanks, Andre.

I respect the way in which you've chosen to think thro a number of issues . . . not just blindly accepted what has been stated by others. I think the key, though, is to look at the "fruits" of the argument.

In my day, Communism was the ideology that every intelligent person listened to and argued for or against.

It sounded perfectly plausible ("every man being equal . . .yada yada yada"), logical and well thought out.

However, the "fruits" of the Soviet lifestyle in Russia and eastern Europe didn't match the rhetoric. The Socialist nirvana was a non event, even years after it had been brought about. On my four times behind the Iron Curtain (East Germany & Yugoslavia), I saw people travelling by horse & cart still, in the country areas!

What I'm more inclined to do, is to look at the example that an argument brings about.

I don't always take on board everything that is plausible and logical and sounds great.

You can still be taken for a ride!

Anyhow . . . I write this on Election Day in Australia (Sat Nov 24th)

Whichever party I vote for I see pluses and minuses.

The older I get, the more sceptical I am because I have heard all the promises before, not always witnessing any delivery of their promises.

At the end of the day however, democracy may be a very inefficient mechanism of delivery, but it's the safest.

Dictatorships can deliver at the snap of a dictator's fingers, but getting them to deliver for the common good is something else.

Until a better mechanism comes along, I'll stick with the system in hand.

Wish us voters luck!

Hi Bob,

Best of luck for the elections! I have no doubt that if the majority of Australians are able to reason logically as you have demonstrated, the new government will be chosen properly and held accountable thereafter.

If I had a time machine, I would have gone back to the 60s and seriously tried to get our government to phase in democracy over a longer period by allowing only registered tax payers to vote. That would have avoided our illiterate peasants from voting in a corrupt government. In the meanwhile I would have educated the next voting generation free of charge in stead of implementing bantu education. Africa has its own challenges.

Interesting to no note that it was once "the right thing" to go for communism, especially for intellectuals. Incidentally, before Hitler started killing Jews and just before WW2, the English aristocracy were strong Nazi supporters. Of course here in South Africa communism was one of the most feared outcomes possible, which is what kept young white males in military conscription and the apartheid state going for longer. Once Russia fell, reform was considered less threatening and negotiations were concluded. We were also promised a lot as I'm sure you will have heard from the other Saffers, so we know what it's like being taken for a ride. We now have a one-party state under the ANC and it is unlikely it will ever change. The balance is and will always be shifted too much to one side.

I agree that in Australia, democracy is probably the best system because if the government stuffs up, they will be voted out. That's because everyone had a fair go to start with. The same goes for the USA. Under a democracy, the president represents the lowest common denominator, and for the USA it's George W. Bush, like it or not. They of course vote for their president and I'm sorry to say, I'm not sure what the Australians do.

I'm sure you will have heard of Ayn Rand, the novelist and author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" and for those who don't, she argued for individualism and positive self interest which started quite a political following at the time. She also declared that democracy is the tyrany of the masses over the individual or something to that effect. As a young student I loved the ideas of freedom of the individual and I still argue for civil liberties, but I soon realised that in the greater scheme of things, Ms Rand was a nut case. Others like Thoreau also lamented the position of the individual within society and I enjoyed "On Walden Pond".

Bob, I'm not a communist, far from it. A closet socialist maybe. I would just like to see people actively trying to work towards a more humanist society and I thought the "matehood" concept in Australia was a good one. A revitalisation of Australian values for Australia perhaps, by whoever is the next government?

Karen, I think I might have caused offence by saying that Canadians are not opinionated. I'm afraid that's not something I can apologise for as I don't think it qualifies as an insult. They are very polite and most would consider that a compliment. I have visited Toronto once in the last five years and my wife's (ex SA) uncle lives in Vancouver and her aunt (ex SA) lives in Saskatoon. Based on our visit and visits from the now very Canadian family (been there for about 20 years), I found Canadians to be polite, nausiatingly politically correct and quite boring, just like their cities. Toronto and suburbs are squeaky clean, modern and impressively well organised but boring. Needless to say, if for some reason we don't get our Australian PR visa, my wife and I will be heading off to live in cold and boring Saskatoon.

It isn't a secret that as countries go, Americans are considered "brash" and to a lesser degree so are South Africans and Australians. Canada despises being compared to America and Canadians take pride in their own heritage and resist Americanification more than either the South Africans or the Australians. (Pity it is so blasted cold over there!) I tried to find the thread on how boring Canadians are from the SACanada.org site but alas...That was written by a South African and many others joined in. Karen, you probably don't notice it anymore which is commendable I think, as I support the idea of blending in and becoming a citizen of your new country in every way. Are you considering moving to Australia? Just wondering...

[Nilo]

Hi Guys,

Watching the Election Report and TV and it looks very RED! Not sure if that's neccessarily good!

What you say Bob?

N

[Bob]

Boy oh boy!

I wanted to draw a conclusion to this discussion a while back but keep getting to reply on it.

Karen,

good on ya that you have made some mates in the Gay community. There is nothing wrong with that, anymore than having mates who belong to the Communist Party in Canada.

It just shows me that you have a divergence of mates, that's all.

However, I don't personally subscribe to all my mate's views or lifestyles.

I have some dear mates whom I've known since my single days . . . over 30 years now . . . and have seen how their values and ethics have kept them going over the years. It's interesting once you get to my age.

I understand that some homosexuals are born wired that way.

Some people are wired to have a violent temper.

Some people are wired to have a pre-disposition to alcohol.

Perhaps the next time I witness a drunk driver wiping out somebody I might remind the copper and ambulance people that he / she might be "pre-disposed" to alcohol, so go easy on them?

The bloke bashing his missus should be pitied because of his "pre-disposition" to a violent temper?

If people's "wiring" pre-disposes in a particular way, it's dangerous ground to excuse all their behaviour because of it.

If you accept the homosexual because they are pre-disposed that way, you have to accept the drunkard killing people with their vehicles and the man bashing his wife daily . . . don't you?

You can't discriminate.

Also, because of people's "wiring", you make it seem that we have no choice in our behaviour. We are just primitives that have no discretion, no free will.

I don't hold to that view.

I think we all have a free will, a choice in our behaviours and if I choose to drink to excess and kill somebody with my car when I'm in a drunken state, I am responsible for the choices I've made.

More importantly, young boys are experimenting with their sexuality when they reach puberty.

It's an age when they can be easily influenced with pornography, self abuse, homosexuality, loose living, etc. and some habits last a lifetime when picked up at this early age.

I tell my kids that they are not to sleep around. They have choices and with those choices comes responsibility.

I don't let my son or my daughter sleep with anyone of the opposite sex in their rooms.

Call me prejudiced or old fashioned.

Under my roof, those are the rules and they stick!

I see my mates letting their kids sleep with girlfirends, boyfriends, you name it . . . and those kids are a mess!

They have no boundaries.

I don't agree with many things on the Gay agenda, such as in New South Wales where they wanted to access every High school talk to the kids and tell them that the homosexual lifestyle was a perfectly natural and acceptable lifestyle for boys and girls to follow.

Many kids going thro puberty would have been introduced to a homosexual lifestyle that way.

Next thing would have been Playboy showing all their porn around the classrooms, giving it away and telling all the kids that self abuse and porn wouldn't wreck their marriages in future years.

Yeah right!

I don't agree with it, don't want my son or my daughter to be influenced by it and won't have that muck under my roof.

It is symptomatic of a lost society in my humble opinion.

In my day, homosexuals were bashed up.

I didn't agree with it. Nobody should be harrassed and bashed up.

The Gays were allowed to practise their lifestyle legally so that they wouldn't be blackmailed or intimidated any longer, among other reasons, and I agree with that.

That doesn't mean that I condone their lifestyle and it seems that Gay supporters are very puritanical in insisting that everyone support their ways and views.

That is an entirely different point.

I still remember back in 1973 when homosexuality was legalised, some of us were wondering when it was going to become compulsory.

Anyhow, if I am condemned for that, I just have to take it on the chin.

I guess that being a real man nowadays means that you stick up for what you believe in.

There was a bloke who walked this Earth a couple of thousand years ago that stuck up for what he believed in and copped it in the neck, as a result.

It goes with the territory.