Given Victoria’s November election and the Greens Party’s policy on sexual orientation and gender identity this week’s controversy about a girls’ school banning a student from taking her lesbian partner to the school social is timely.

The Ivanhoe school social ban has sparked outcry.

If the Greens Party wins the balance of power in the upcoming state election and is able to implement its policy then there is every chance that Catholic schools will be forced to employ gay/lesbian teachers and promote the benefits of alternative sexuality and gender lifestyles to students.

Government and other faith-based schools will also be made to teach a curriculum that positively discriminates in favour of gays, lesbians, transgender and intersex persons.

Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.

It’s policy document headed ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Politics’ argues that when it comes to sexuality there must be “an end to all forms of discrimination” and that government must legislate to end discrimination based on “sexual orientation or gender identity”.

The Greens’ education policy also argues that schools, especially Catholic and other faith-based schools, no longer have the right to decide who they employ or who they enrol when it states that such schools adopt “non-discriminatory staff recruitment and enrolment policies”.

If schools refuse to implement such extreme policies, as they run counter to a school’s religious beliefs and mission, then the Greens argue that such schools should lose funding.

Ignored is that most Australians accept the fact that marriage is between a man and a women and that heterosexuality is the norm. 

Also ignored is that freedom of religion is a basic human right and that parents have the right to enrol their children in schools that reflect and teach the values they believe are important.

It’s not only the Greens that want to teach children that gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and intersex lifestyles are normal and acceptable. 

The Victorian Branch of the Australian Education Union has argued for years that it is wrong for schools to discriminate and that such lifestyles must be presented in a positive light.

Gay/lesbian activists argue that plays like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and fairy tales like Cinderella should not be taught as they celebrate heterosexuality and a happy ending is defined as marrying the Prince.

The blue print for every Australian school endorsed by federal, state and territory education ministers, the Melbourne Declaration, also argues that it is wrong for schools to discriminate in areas like gender and sexual orientation.

Taken to their conclusion, and if the Greens win control of the Victorian Parliament, such policies will mean that every student in the state will be taught that more extreme forms of sexuality and gender relations are normal.

Schools will also be discriminated against by losing funding if they refuse to follow what the government dictates.

It’s true that everyone, regardless of sexuality or gender identity, should be treated fairly and justly.  When it comes to same sex relationships, for example, most people accept that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same legal and other property rights as heterosexual couples.

It’s also true that faith-based schools, because of their religious nature, have every right to ensure that who they enrol and who they employ are able to accept and live by the moral and spiritual values considered central to the schools’ mission.

- Dr Kevin Donnelly is Director of Education Standards Institute and author of Australia’s Education Revolution.

141 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eleanor says:

      03:24pm | 10/11/10

      “It’s true that everyone, regardless of sexuality or gender identity, should be treated fairly and justly.”

      Unless they want to work at or attend a religious school while being open about their non-hetero sexuality, it would appear.

      “Gay/lesbian activists argue that plays like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and fairy tales like Cinderella should not be taught as they celebrate heterosexuality and a happy ending is defined as marrying the Prince.”

      Have you even read Romeo and Juliet? I’d hardly say it has a happy ending. If anything, it’s a precautionary tale against reckless teenage relationships.

    • Andrew says:

      04:26pm | 10/11/10

      Eleanor, I don’t understand why people would want to work for organisations that don’t share their views on things such as religion, sexuality, gender identity etc.

      I am not a Muslim and do not share Muslim values and therefore do not wish to work for an organisation that would expect me to adopt and teach these values and therefore I am quite puzzled as to why a teacher who was a homosexual would want to work at a Christian school where the majority of their colleagues, students and parents of their students would be opposed to their lifestyle. It just seems bizarre to me.

    • Emily says:

      08:27pm | 10/11/10

      @Andrew
      I graduated from one of Melbourne’s catholic all girl private schools a few years ago.  With a year level of 150 I can safely say that not one student from my graduating class would have ‘opposed’ having a teacher who was openly homosexual

      In all those hours I spent in R.E classes over my 13 years of catholic education the main message was being respectful and caring to others…. not as you suggest to live in a bubble only surrounded by those that hold the exact same view as you and make the exact same choices

      Let me guess… you are a baby boomer?

    • acotrel says:

      06:13am | 11/11/10

      ‘Government and other faith-based schools will also be made to teach a curriculum that positively discriminates in favour of gays, lesbians, transgender and intersex persons.’

      ANOTHER PHOBIA?  I think I’ll slash my wrists, I’ve got SO much to worry about!  I wonder if any of the asylum seekers are gay or lesbian?

    • bella starkey says:

      03:27pm | 10/11/10

      I went to my year 12 formal with a girl. I didn’t have a boyfriend at the time and she was a lot more fun than any of the blokes I knew so I went with her.

      I think one girl made a comment and she was told to verily “f*** off” by everyone because it wasn’t a big deal. This was a catholic girls school and the teachers never saw a problem with it. If I was gay I still think they wouldn’t have had a problem.

      It really annoys me when schools put thier image above the welfare of thier students. A friend of my younger brother was “invited to leave” his private boys school when his attendance and marks started slipping. Nevermind the fact that his mother had been at deaths door after a pancreas transplant for the 6 months proceeding this.

      How incredibly unchristian of them.

      These girls should have been allowed to go, schools have a pastoral as well as an educational responsibility to thier charges and making this girl feel excluded and like an outsider directly contradicts that, no matter the religious persuasion of the school.

    • Zara says:

      08:29pm | 10/11/10

      My school ‘suggested students would feel more comfortable in a different learning environment’

      ...I mean otherwise how else would we achieve consisently high ENTER scores raspberry

    • Jeff says:

      11:59pm | 10/11/10

      And so it goes, ‘undesirables’ - labelled as that for whatever reason - are told or asked (insistently) to leave private schools and sent to the nearest public schools.  Meanwhile, well-meaning parents send their kids to private schools so their kids do not have to mix with these and other ‘undesirables’ in a public school - and they are now able to do this because the Government funds private schools whereas 40 years ago, they wouldn’t have been able to afford it.
      And so the cycle worsens. If Public schools cannot summarily expel students, or insist they leave, and cannot refuse entry to students who have a disability or a poor behaviour history, then no school that receives public money should be able to do this.
      Let’s get a level playing field here.

    • Gregaro says:

      03:33pm | 10/11/10

      I agree it is up to the school to set it’s own standards, no matter how bigoted they may be. As long as it is a private school it should have the right to set its own rules in regards to matters of faith and morals.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      09:03pm | 10/11/10

      Unless of course the tax-payer also chips in to the funding of the school. Then maybe they should be expected to consider broader community standards.

    • Jeff says:

      12:01am | 11/11/10

      But not with Government money.

    • DCL says:

      07:24am | 11/11/10

      So we can re-direct all the tax payer funded benifits to schools that do offer an equal, non bigoted learning environment?

    • acotrel says:

      08:44am | 11/11/10

      Discrimination is discrimination wherever it occurs.  If private schools want to set up their own little sectarian enclaves, they should do it without taxpayer assistance!

    • iansand says:

      09:56am | 11/11/10

      Can anyone tell me any other area where government funding is dependent on adopting a particular set of standards?  They may exist - I just cn’t think of any offhand.  And can someone also explain why this is desirable - it sounds a tad totalitarian to me.

    • Georginorx says:

      11:02am | 11/11/10

      I agree with Gregaro, unfortunately. People should have a choice about the values that their children are taught, no matter how socially counter-productive those values and beliefs are. It is up to the parent to decide which schools’ set of values they subscribe to.

      On the plus side, I would expect Ivanhoe school to have fewer enrollments in the coming year as parents more closely scrutinise the values and beliefs that schools choose. This should lead to a natural progression of school values that reflect the values of the public.

    • davec says:

      12:05pm | 11/11/10

      I agree with you completely. Private shcools should be able to teach and do whatever they want, just as soon as they give up the right to accept public funding. As soon as they accept public funding then they should have to comply with whatever rules the funding provider sets.

    • cRook says:

      02:29pm | 11/11/10

      Parents of private school children are tax payers too. Unless public schools are going to educate and indoctrinate their students in the belief system of every minority group, how about we take away their tax payer funded benefits? For that matter, unless you want the government to be able to tell you what you can and can’t believe, then please don’t use the tax payer funded health system.

    • Bob says:

      02:32pm | 11/11/10

      FYI, people who send their kids to private schools are also tax payers too. Surely they have just as much right to educate thier kids with tax payers money as the rest of the population. Private schools cost tax payers less. Parents choosing a private school are also taking additional funds out their own pocket too.

      Look out for the “GAYSTAPO” thought police.

    • Zeta says:

      03:34pm | 10/11/10

      If teenage girls making out behind the cricket sheds is the end of the world as we know it, sign me up, I’m getting on my apocalypse horse. It’s on. Let’s drink the Kool Aid now. That’s an armadageddon we can all get behind.

      I mean, here I was thinking we’d struggle through the end of days as the Powers That Be bomb us into glass with nuclear missiles - but no! It’s actually saphic love that’s going to bring down humanity. 

      Open up your cracker jack box and start scoffing down the WTF cookies how did you even get a Doctorate?!?! Because when I was at University, we’d have run off the campus anyone who doubted that two teenage girls falling in love and holding hands and going to the damn formal together wasn’t just the cutest damn thing since that viral video of the bunny rabbit eating pop corn. You monster.

      I haven’t seen someone miss the point so totally since Jongbloed missed Archie Gemmel’s goal in 1978.

      The freedom of individuals to do as they choose trumps the freedom of institutions every time. Therefore, an enlightened society values the freedom of two lesbians to celebrate a milestone with each other over the freedom of a ‘school’ to enforce a meaningless ‘rule’ that is only relevant to old men who don’t go to school any more.

      Isn’t it possible that problems lies not with two students challenging the school’s rules, but rather, with the rules themselves?

      Of course the Green’s solution isn’t the right one - you can’t combat institutionalised bigotry with legislation. The only people who think you can are those with vested interests in being the legislators, that’s why politicians don’t think of non-political solutions, because they render themselves redundant.

      That’s why you’re blind to the fact school might actually be the problem - because you make a living out of talking about schools.

      But I guarantee you those two girls have just learned more about life through this experience than hours upon hours learning meaningless crap in a classroom.

      In a totallly not creepy way, they are welcome to party with me any day of the week.

    • Kordez says:

      04:50pm | 10/11/10

      Nice one mate.

    • stephen says:

      09:28pm | 10/11/10

      But schools don’t enforce rules, individuals do. They, or the elected representatives, have dictated a group behaviour at this particular venue at this time, and have - for better or worse - ascertained a code of conduct.  That two girls had decided not to participate does not inflict guilt on the school.
      You have made a false agreement between the motive and intentions of the group, and the individual.
      I hope you don’t have a Doctorate.

    • Macca says:

      06:53am | 11/11/10

      Don’t ever leave us, Zeta.

    • Matthew Cheyne says:

      09:10pm | 11/11/10

      Well said. And to add to that; if this school head insists on remaining bigoted in her views towards how her school should be run then the next state government should simply yank away any state funding that Ivanhoe Girls Grammar receives.

      By the time the board of that school realizes the implications of what she did the principal would have either quit or have been fired.

      I heard the principal say on ABC 774 Melbourne on Jon Faine’s that she would rather the girl concerned take a boy with her to the formal. Why not just come out and say “we’d rather you not be gay” for all its worth because that’s how I heard it.

    • Luce says:

      01:22pm | 15/11/10

      Zeta, very nicely done.

      There should be no support for a school, or rather a principle, who is going to act in a bigoted way such as this. Youngsters should be taught respect for all, and shown the benefits of a tolerant, accepting society.  Not one where two kids in love are made to feel bad about what they’re doing simply because they are both of the same sex. Love, lust and everything related is the same regardless of who its happening between.

      The school needs to shake off the shackles of archaic prejudices and welcome staff and students from all areas of society, provided, of course, they are competent at their job or will be a productive student. Reinforcing their social bubble only serves to reinforce the “we are different” idea, which is the cause of so much nastiness in the greater society.

    • MrMac says:

      03:35pm | 10/11/10

      In the penultimate paragraph, Kevin says “everyone, regardless of sexuality or gender identity, should be treated fairly and justly” and goes on to say “that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same legal and other property rights as heterosexual couples”.  .. Property rights? What about human rights?
      ................................

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.” ..

      It’s not about the numbers or proportion, Kevin: it is about what is an innate (hard-wired) sexuality - God-given if you like.

      How about accepting .. all members of society accept and live by the moral values considered central to the society?

    • Barry says:

      05:28pm | 10/11/10

      Yeah so if you live in Uganda don’t complain that it is wrong for the government to have such harsh laws against homosexuals.  Apparently, 96% of the community think that homosexuality should be rejected by society.  Obviously, the rejection of homosexuality is something which is very central to the moral values of Ugandan society.  Therefore, homosexuals in Uganda should bite the bullet, and admit in a world filled with relative morals that it’s perfectly acceptable for a society to determine their own central moral values regardless of the outcomes.  Hmm, somehow I don’t think you really support “all members of society should just accept and live by the moral values considered central to the society”.  It opens up a whole big can of worms.

    • MrMac says:

      06:56pm | 10/11/10

      OK Barry, I assumed I was addressing a society like Australia, NZ, the UK, and probably the USA & most of Europe.

      The irony is that Uganda’s vehement anti-homosexuality stance was initiated and fuelled by America’s christian right.

    • acotrel says:

      06:18am | 11/11/10

      ‘It’s not about the numbers or proportion, Kevin: it is about what is an innate (hard-wired) sexuality - God-given if you like.’

        God is a bit of a pest sometimes.  Why does he give this type of gift to priests, christian brothers, and catholic students?

    • Bruno says:

      03:35pm | 10/11/10

      Same sex relationships may be in the minority, but they are nonetheless normal, unless of course you define normal as what the majority does or thinks.

      Religious schools receive public funds and there is no reason why they should be exempt from anti discrimination legislation.

      In fact, in practice many catholic and other religious schools employ gay and lesbian staff, they just don’t want admit it.

      Why the hypocrisy?

    • Harry says:

      02:38pm | 11/11/10

      If they believe in their bible, they are obliged to remove any practicing Gay or lesbian. The bible is very clear on that activity which makes me laugh that practicing gays or Lesbians claim to be religious.

    • AliceC says:

      03:06pm | 11/11/10

      @Harry

      It makes me laugh that people believe in a book written by a bunch of men thousands of years ago…

      Would it also be appropriate for me to start a school that bans all Christian teachers, students and any reference to Christianity?

    • Me and my Chevy says:

      03:25pm | 11/11/10

      What makes me laugh, is when idiots like Harry, makes stupid religious comments which just fuel the fire of hatred. If these so-called “Christian” schools, and in fact the writers here, are so gung ho about being Christian, how many of them turn the other cheek? How many of them see somebody who does something will then immediately want to right the wrong by reversing what was done (and eye for an eye)? Please note Harry, that is exactly the same part of the Bible, as the rubbish you are spouting.

    • Dave says:

      03:54pm | 11/11/10

      Clearly they don’t believe in their bible then.

    • MarK says:

      03:38pm | 10/11/10

      Errrrrrr maybe you should have kept up with current events.

      http://www.news.com.au/national/principal-defends-same-sex-dance-ban/story-e6frfkvr-1225950819626

      It was a ban based on the fact that it a year 11 formal and so only year 11 kids from the school could go.

      So we have a pissed off dad that misrepresented what the school said. The daughter and girlfriend get their 15 minutes of fame - misrepresenting what the school said.

      I am all for bashing a Greenie with their stupid policies and such but lets keep it in context. There is no correlation here.

      What this story is about is a school restricting the year 11 formal to year 11 kids from the school.

      I know that doesn’t sell papers or make a good rant fun but there you go.

      I suppose you could take the “a family told us lies to get in the news and we at The Age like to report crap anyway as long as it has the correct vibe” line and run with it. I am sure Theo Thenopoolis (however you spell his name) would have some insights to share with you about quality Age reporting. Nice to lose your career to a liar with a friend that is a reporter.

      Sorry to rain on your parade and all but the story is wrong in its facts.

      .

    • AFR says:

      05:49pm | 10/11/10

      I sincerely hope you’re being sarcastic.

    • Seano says:

      06:33pm | 10/11/10

      Were the school checking birth dates and grades of guests before this blew up MarK? No they weren’t. You swallow the spin because it backs up your prejudice.

    • Bambul says:

      08:41pm | 10/11/10

      Right from the link provided: “Hannah claimed there were boys from younger year levels that were allowed to come top [sic] the event.” So, if you’re a boy from year 10 you can come, but if you’re a girl then you can’t. Discrimination, plain and simple.

      It actually proves the point you were trying to discredit.

    • over it says:

      09:39pm | 10/11/10

      @bambul. “Hannah claimed…” = truth
      “school said ” = lies.
      Yes we should alllll take the word of a teenager, because they are always right.
      Maybe a kick up the ass and told she’s NOT the centre of the universe might have been a more effective way of teaching her a life lesson.
      Just because you want, doesnt mean you get.

    • MarK says:

      06:41am | 11/11/10

      @AFR - nope

      @Seano - what? If they are not from the school it does not matter surely. That was the way it was at my formals. It was a grade restricted event for the people at my school - bring girlfriends of any age as we were all boys it didn’t matter. My girlfriend - now my wife was from a lower year than me, actually 2 years lower.

      And my prejudice? What prejudice? Toss a shoe dude.

      @Bambul - Interesting Bambul. And you failed to note the name of the school - Ivanhoe Girls Grammar (from the link cause it is an awesome link). I contend it would be difficult to get a year 10 boy from the school to attend. The school is trying to keep it as a year 11 event of their students.

      Gosh. Discriminating against boys enrolled in in all girl school. Neat trick.

    • Seano says:

      07:39am | 11/11/10

      @MarK - The school claimed the event was restricted after this blew up champ. Yet they weren’t checking grades and ages before hand. Your ranting ramble does you great discredit, as per usual.

    • MarK says:

      09:51am | 11/11/10

      Seano where did you get the information that the school decided it was restricted after this all blew up? Where does it say anything you said?

      Making stuff up to help win an argument screams of desperation.

      It went to mediation. The anti-discrimination board tossed it out.

      Did you read anything I said?

      I love the good old ad homien attack. Please oh please seano outline to me in my “rambling rant” where I have crossed any line that discredits me either arbitrary or imaginary.

      Actually don’t. Just toss a shoe.

      If you can not see the real issue that the school was running a year 11 formal and wanted to restrict the event to year 11 students from their school then I really don’t know what to say.

      If a student gets pissed at their teachers and happens to be gay they can do what they like? Is that your argument here? I fail to see anything else that you have brought to the table. You keep banging on with the fantasy that the school has flip flopped on policy somehow. /shrug - if it helps you sleep at night good for you son.

    • Seano says:

      11:00am | 11/11/10

      @MarK - please continue with your clownish attempts to be witty with the whole “throw a shoe” bit, weakly attempting attempting to dismiss those who disagree with you as brain dead beat hippies is at best sad, it certainly does you no credit.

      Read the articles champ, the school may legally be able to enforce their rules but the school made no checks on partners until one girl invited another. It’s called spin champ, you’re obviously familiar with that term.

    • Georginorx says:

      11:17am | 11/11/10

      Sounds like the school is just making terrible excuses - I pulled a bit from a longer article so we can see what’s going on here:

      ‘‘If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners.’‘

      Dr Schnagl said the event was under review for next year.

      She said the students’ ages had also been an issue. ‘‘It’s an event for year 11s and the student’s guest was in year 10.’‘

      Hannah said her classmates had taken younger males to the event and she was the only student asked to provide the age of her partner. ‘‘They kept on making up excuses, and said everything was a problem for me.’‘

      - Matthew Schulz From: Herald Sun November 10, 2010 10:16AM

      If they were to invite “guests”, not partners, with the goal of having a co-ed experience, why didn’t they just have a combined formal with a boys’ school?
      And what is up with the age discrimination?

    • Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

      11:56am | 11/11/10

      MarK, clearly you are the one that has misread the artical, your even confusing yourself.

      Lets lay it out:

      1. It’s an all girl school.

      2. The principal wanted the girls to invite boys (you’ve stated that the school “wanted to restrict the event to year 11 students from their school”, which would mean that everyone would have been partnered with a girl (see 1 above) and there would be no issue.)

      3 It seems unlikley that teachers would have been checking the age of every boy at the entrance (they don’t have drivers licences, how would you even do this?), so clearly age is not the issue and this was introduced after the fact.

      So clearly it is not a story about a school restricting the year 11 formal to year 11 kids to the school becuase of points 1,2 and 3 above.

    • MarK says:

      01:07pm | 11/11/10

      Oh gawd seano.

      You still have yet to bring anything to the argument.

      Toss a shoe wasn’t meant to be funny. It was meant to show you have nothing at all to say but throwing of insults.

      Thanks for proving the point. I am still waiting for you to explain my prejudice. Find some examples and go to town. You know you want to.

      @Georginorx - so? She means it was for year 11’s from IGGS and the other girl was in year 10.

      This really is not a big deal. Except certain people keep trying to beat it up into this homophobic scare campaign. See Phelps and her attempt to inflame the situation in anther article on the site.

    • Georginorx says:

      01:43pm | 11/11/10

      @MarK - could you please explain your question?
      To me, it looks like the school is bringing up one form of discrimination after another to try and hide their original mistake. First sexuality, then gender, then age with gender. None of those explanations give a good reason to block the Year 10 girl from being invited.
      What would the school do if none of the girls invited boys to this event, and they all went by themselves? Surely that would do far more damage to the stated goals of the event.
      Finally, you have to weigh up the impact of letting girls invite girls to a social event, versus the impact of discriminating against a same sex couple (whether on purpose or incidental). Did anyone stop and think whether it was a healthy decision to exclude a couple from an event based on their age/gender/sexuality? The situation made the girls feel uncomfortable enough that they changed schools.

    • MarK says:

      02:13pm | 11/11/10

      You are overthinking it.

      A year 10 kid wanted to go to the year 11 formal.

      The school said no because they do not allow year 10 students from the school to go to the year 11 formal.

      If you are not a student at the school you can go if invited regardless (but I am sure within reason) of your age.

      That is all this is about.

      Phelps and others want to make it a big deal.

      It is a school dinner dance. That is all. The school has rules. The girl in question wanted to break them. Because she could not get her way she called discrimination.

      It is so meh this whole thing it is scary.

      Surprisingly, and of course none of this has been questioned, how come the girl had been in an obviously open relationship with the pther student for all this time and the worst - THE WORST - thing that they can yell about is not being allowed to take a year 10 student form the same school to the year 11 formal.

      It hardly reeks of systematic and overt discrimination against her choice of partner now does it?

    • Edward Elric says:

      02:16pm | 11/11/10

      Except that students are more than welcome to bring boys who may not be in Year 11.

    • MarK says:

      02:28pm | 11/11/10

      Sigh….....

        Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

        11:56am | 11/11/10

        “MarK, clearly you are the one that has misread the artical, your even confusing yourself.”

      Not at all the confusion is with you. I am perfectly consistent all the way through

        ”  Lets lay it out:”

      Happy to go through it again

      ”  1. It’s an all girl school.”

      We are in 100% agreement

        ”  2. The principal wanted the girls to invite boys (you’ve stated that the school “wanted to restrict the event to year 11 students from their school”, which would mean that everyone would have been partnered with a girl (see 1 above) and there would be no issue.)”

      Yep she wanted them to interact with boys - she said it. And she was limiting the schools attendance- HER SCHOOLS ATTENDANCE - to year 11 students at the school.

      They can be mutually exclusive things. Please try and get this.

      If you were a student at IGSS you had to be from year 11 to go.

      If you were not from the school (and I am sure ridiculous outliers would be excluded) you are fine to be invited if you were younger or older

        ” 3 It seems unlikley that teachers would have been checking the age of every boy at the entrance (they don’t have drivers licences, how would you even do this?), so clearly age is not the issue and this was introduced after the fact.”

      This was never an issue. It has never been stated anywhere that I can find that ages were checked of the guests. So why would they check - see point 2 above.

      It hasn’t been introduced after any fact. The school was disallowing its own year 10 students form attending.

      So what?

        “So clearly it is not a story about a school restricting the year 11 formal to year 11 kids to the school becuase of points 1,2 and 3 above.”

      So clearly you have failed to grasp or understand what this is all about.

      You have not read what I wrote.

      You did not even read the quote I gave (since quotes are the in thing) to describe exactly what the school had been saying

      Here it is again

      “Dr Schnagl said Ms Williams was told to bring a boy or come on her own, and says Hannah would have been given permission to bring a year 11 girl.”

      This girl didn’t get her way and tossed a dummy spit.

      Lets be clear just for you

      Rule 1 of the year 11 formal at IGGS - if you are from IGSS you must be from year 11

      Rule 2 - see rule 1

      Suggestions and Encouragement - since we are an all girl school bring a boy to mix it up a bit.

      Thanks for your time.

    • Seano says:

      04:54pm | 11/11/10

      At no stage in the past has this school stopped year 10 boys from attending. You can rant, spin and spit bile all your like MarK, facts are facts and prejudice is prejudice.

    • MarK says:

      06:49am | 12/11/10

      seano seriously.

      I AGREE totally that they have been allowed to bring year 10 boys. That is because of this peculiar fact.

      A year 10 boy can not go to school at IGGS.

      I will keep repeating the rule, a fact

      If you are a student at IGGS in year 11 you can attend the year 11 formal. If you are a student at IGSS and are NOT in year 11 you CANNOT attend the formal.

      While we are at it seano pray tell please show me the “bile” I am “spitting”

      I think you are an angry person that has no concept of what is going on. All you want is to be able yell prejudice for no reason other than it feels cool I guess.

      Enjoy

    • Seano says:

      11:04am | 12/11/10

      “A year 10 boy can not go to school at IGGS.”

      LMAO - so now you’re going to pretend that if the girls where at different schools they would have been allowed to attend the formal together?

      Talk about misrepresent the “facts” to build your self a case.

      Seriously seek help.

    • Geoff says:

      03:40pm | 10/11/10

      Its funny how lefties, homosexuals and minorities demand the church keep out of government and society powers as these are secular. Yet get all butthurt and want to impose their opinions on the church. Bunch of hypocrites.

    • John says:

      09:50pm | 10/11/10

      No Geoff, there are no minorities going into churches and forcing them to preach what they believe. Its when a catholic group is openly discriminating against a minority AND is being given public funding. If they want to discriminate, fine, they can find the money and fund it themselves

    • acotrel says:

      09:03am | 11/11/10

      When has the church ever been a democratic institution? Gay, and lesbian people are right to challenge its authority!

    • HB says:

      09:41am | 11/11/10

      Exactly Geoff!  Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions and the Church is told to stay silent.  I find it interesting how everyone believes that they have the right to say where their taxes go when you really don’t.  Does your employer tell you where you can spend your wages?  It was their money before they gave it to you just as the tax money was yours before you gave it to them.  If we get to choose where our tax money goes then I don’t want my money paying for healthcare for smokers - they chose to smoke not me!  See how ridiculous this attitude can get!

    • John says:

      10:13am | 11/11/10

      HB there’s a pretty damn obvious difference between how a person’s private income and our taxes are spent. If these catholic schools want to teach pure bigotry towards a minority than they have NO RIGHT to government funding. If these catholic organisations that seem to want to teach hate and discrimination want to operate they can fund themselves

    • Me and my Chevy says:

      03:14pm | 11/11/10

      Actually Geoff, I just read all of Mark and Sean’s articles, and that left me somewhat numb, until I read yours. Perhaps you could show us one example of gay people imposing their opinions on the Church, which wasn’t done to put their own position in context within the church: I mean of course gay priests wanting to be out, and gay parishioners wanting communion. Nothing in this current debate is about gay people imposing their views on the Church or its representative schools. It is about two kids wanting to go to a formal, and why they can’t and then the school’s position being caught, ipso facto, in an attempt to hide the discrimination around the issue of age, gender mix, et cetera.

      If you feel so strongly vis a vis the school version of events, fine, but please don’t treat the rest of us as though we are as stupid as Andrew and perfectly accepting of a school practising active discrimination, no matter how that discrimination is couched, of being the recipients on a per student basis of 60% more funding than a government school which would never even think to do such a thing.

      I am heartily fed up with people such as yourself gnashing your teeth and beating your back as though the world will come to an end when a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old girl found that they love each other.I have to tell you I much prefer that to what we normally have coming out of the Catholic Church in terms of interaction between parishioners and priests, particularly when the parishioners are 10-year-old boys.

    • Aitch B says:

      03:42pm | 10/11/10

      I’d be very interested to hear about the “benefits of alternative sexuality and gender lifestyles”.

    • Zeta says:

      05:06pm | 10/11/10

      It’s easier to pick up on a lonely Saturday night. If you’re out ‘creeping’ as my bro The Situation would call it, and you’re in a nightclub, the mathematics of finding an available partner are the ratio of women-to-men in the club minus women with partners, multiplied by the percentage of those women who’d cheat on their partners divided by the number of other men also looking for partners minus the 13.0357142857 of every 100 women who will be menstruating on any given day, minus the percentage of the population who are obese (it changes, you need to check it every day) - you take the final figure, which could be as low as 1, and divide that by your own attractiveness, multiplied by 2 if it’s a full moon, which doubles promiscuity in laboratory tests, multiplied by the number of NRL matches you’ve played, and you’re left with the final figure. 

      Now if you’re gay, you go into a gay nightclub, your chances of picking up increase by a factor of the aggregate ratio of unattatched mates. Even accounting for excluding potential partners based on the miniscule percentages of HIV infection in Australian homosexual males, even accounting for you being the weirdest looking gay man in the world, your chances of picking up in a gay night club are astronomical compared to those in a straight one.

      Your chances then escalate further with bisexuality, pan sexuality, and transexuality. To maximise your picking up potential, you ideally want to be a pansexual pre-op transgender who plays for the Western Bulldogs, which will see your chances of scoring exceed that of the number of people in any given nightclub, and theoretically, you can pick up in your sleep.

      That’s one benefit right there.

    • Aitch B says:

      07:01pm | 10/11/10

      @Zeta.

      Thanks for telling me what I already knew! smile

      But what about the less obvious ones?

    • Cate P says:

      03:43pm | 10/11/10

      Serve the Catholic schools right for not preserving and teaching the faith better so that the kids coming out of their schools actually knew what it was instead of despising the parody they have been exposed to.  Tragedy is the Catholic schools wouldn’t shut up shop if they were told to teach such stuff, but would just do so - probably many already do.  Unless things have changed recently.

    • Andrew says:

      03:46pm | 10/11/10

      I’m going to pick one quote, and point out a massive flaw in your logic:

      “It’s not only the Greens that want to teach children that gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and intersex lifestyles are normal and acceptable.

      The Victorian Branch of the Australian Education Union has argued for years that it is wrong for schools to discriminate and that such lifestyles must be presented in a positive light.

      Gay/lesbian activists argue that plays like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and fairy tales like Cinderella should not be taught as they celebrate heterosexuality and a happy ending is defined as marrying the Prince. “

      Those are all three completely different positions. The first are classical liberalism, and the third uses an extreme position, combined with weasel words, to imply that all three comments are somewhat related:
      1) Don’t discriminate;
      2) Don’t discriminate, and say it’s ok for a person to choose a lifestyle that they wish; and
      3) Destroy everything the ‘majority’ identifies with.

      Point one does not equal point two, which in turn does not equal point three.

      Most of your argument follows the assumption that these positions are all the same, when it is patently not the case.

      Anti-discrimination, despite the feelings of some, is not zero sum game. Granting a right does not automatically mean you are going to suffer as a result.

      Alas, this article implies that you are either pro heterosexual marriage and the family unit and anti gay rights, or you want to destroy everything that is near and dear to ordinary Australians, and what’s more, you’re also a pervert.

      If this is the standard of critcal thought required in the Victorian education system, God save Victoria.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:30pm | 10/11/10

      I was a teenager when NSW age of homosexual consent laws were brought in line with heterosexual consent norms.
      Meaning that the age of consent for anal sex between boys and men was lowered to 16.
      I remember thinking at the time that in the name of political correctness, young men were losing protection that they should otherwise expect from the legal institutions in this country.
      Reality is that homosexuality is a minority lifestyle and as such, the reality is that outside the homosexual community there are long-lasting pressures including stigma and social isolation associated with active homosexuality.
      Surely, it was not too much to ask our politicians and legislators to keep an eye out for young and vulnerable men by keeping 18 as the legal age of consent.
      Like heterosexual consent laws, this legislation could never be fail-safe or bullet-proof, but in this secular community, laws do send a strong message on what community expectations are.
      Bisexuality seems almost a fashion statement for the young, and yet there can be a long-lasting and isolating stigma associated with active homosexuality.
      Why did the homosexual lobby attempt to gloss over that reality, even as it campaigns for the normalisation of homosexuality?

    • Phil says:

      06:55am | 11/11/10

      Lisa. Maybe that law was changed by persons with self interests or to minimise the impact of fuure legal action against one of their own members of parliment

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:47pm | 10/11/10

      I think you’ll find that most Australians couldn’t give a crap who wants to get married and its just the religious throwbacks that get all antsy about homosexual marriage. Gay people have the same rights to be miserable as everyone else.

      As for the rest, seriously?? You expect rational, sane, educated adults to think that the secret greens/gay coalition wants to ban classic literature such as Romeo and Juliet and other perceived pro-hetero education or steal your children and make them gay?? Mate, its not the 1890’s anymore. Its people like you being allowed to influence modern education in this country I, as a happily hetero bloke, am far more worried about, especially as my children go to a Catholic School.

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:49pm | 10/11/10

      “The Greens’ education policy also argues that schools, especially Catholic and other faith-based schools, no longer have the right to decide who they employ or who they enrol when it states that such schools adopt “non-discriminatory staff recruitment and enrolment policies”. “
      Fair enough.  Or they can forget about state funding, and have all bigotry they want.

      What I find interesting is that Mr Donnelly didn’t even try to defend the school administrators, who argue that the issue isn’t about homosexuality but about age limits for the formal (and if that’s true then the whole event is a non-issue).  But I shouldn’t be surprised, this is coming from a man who said the following in the comments of his 2 Aug Punch article:
      “The argument that you can take religion out of politics is one of the myths perpetuated by those running a secular agenda.  Australia’s political and legal systems are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values - that is one reason why parliament begins with the Lord’s Prayer.”

    • AFR says:

      03:52pm | 10/11/10

      I thought I’d read some BS in my time, but this pretty much takes the cake. Gays only make up 1 - 2% of the adult population. Really? As for whether private schools should be free to teach effectively what they want - that’s fine, just don’t expect taxpayers to subsidise it. Bashing the Greens doesn’t change the issue. The school cocked up and was caught out poorly trying to justify their decision.

    • Terry says:

      03:53pm | 10/11/10

      It always makes me wonder about the mentality of people (and religions) that want to discriminate against a particular group. I see no real difference between the various types of discrimination; all I see when I read this article is blatant and unjustifiable phobia’s being allowed to continue because ‘thats how its always been’, maybe if you replaced the word ‘homosexual’ for ‘black’ you’d understand…

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:54pm | 10/11/10

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.”
      Gasp!  How dare they!

    • Phoebe says:

      04:03pm | 10/11/10

      “the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal”
      Ahh, maybe because being gay/lesbian is ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL? Your archaic ideas facilitate descrimination for other minorities in society. Would you approve for schools to be selective of the race of student or staff that they have? No? Well, you may want to think next time before you voice such drivel.

    • AdamC says:

      04:06pm | 10/11/10

      I never even contemplated taking a boy along to my high school formals. Things have changed a lot in the last ten years, for the better it would seem.

      I agree that private and religious schools should be able to make their own decisions following their own collective consciences on these issues. So would most reasonable readers. Greens policies on sexuality no doubt simply reflects their totalitarian reflex across all policy areas. It won’t do anything for gays and lesbians if people feel our ‘agenda’ is being forced down their throats.

      However, I sensed a degree of hostility to the normalisation of homosxuality in this article. I don’t agree that promoting acceptance of difference necessarily promotes it at the expense of ‘normal’ lifestyles. Young people are hardly going to be inspired into ‘turning’ gay because their school makes an effort to accept and explain diversity when it comes to sexuality.

    • Jeff says:

      04:13pm | 10/11/10

      I don’t have a problem with faith-based schools acting contrary to the mainstream but in line with their faith. I do have a problem with them being subsidised by the Government to do this.
      I don’t choose to use public transport but I don’t demand a Government subsidy to buy and run mycar.

    • Razor says:

      06:32pm | 10/11/10

      Jeff - all the infrastructure your car drives on and through is subsidised by the Government.  The taxes you pay don’t cover the full cost and other ssubsidise your car driving.

    • Womble says:

      04:49pm | 10/11/10

      There is something of a contradiction between:

      “most Australians accept the fact that marriage is between a man and a women and that heterosexuality is the norm.”

      and

      “most people accept that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same legal and other property rights as heterosexual couples. “

      You can’t have “the same legal and property rights” if you’re not allowed to marry.

      The rest of this article is similarly disappointing; full of strawmen and scaremongering.  As another commenter suggested, try replacing “gay” and “lesbian” with “black” or “aboriginal”, and “homosexuality” with “slavery”, and see if it still reads as something a reasonable person would want to have anything to do with.

    • Glenn Davey says:

      05:53pm | 10/11/10

      Here, here. Nail on head. This guy shot his bigoted mouth off without thinking. His morals aren’t REAL, human, morals. They’re religious morals from about 4,000 years ago. He is living under the power of a mind-virus that causes people to be unfeeling, anti-humans.

    • Glenn Davey says:

      05:42pm | 10/11/10

      I’m not sure what your point is. Only a small fraction of people are in interracial marriages. But it’s legal. And no-one is promoting it as a average, normal, lifestyle that children SHOULD follow. But we do require that no-one discriminates against these people, or deny them the same rights to marriage as any others who want to marry. A form of marriage that used to be illegal, and considered immoral (by the backward armchair moralists like yourself), before sanity and morality prevailed and we progressed. People like the writer of this article have a political and religious-moral (not real-moral) bias and are frightened of change. Fortunately these ogres are LITERALLY a dying breed. Generation Y will be the new progressive generation of older citizens, and the world will be a more accepting, open and inclusive place to live.

    • Kate says:

      05:47pm | 10/11/10

      Oh, “most Australians” don’t support gay marriage hmm? Can you point me towards the legitimate research that supports this statement? Even if you could find a survey that reaches this conclusion, it’s just as easy to find one concluding that “most Australians” either support gay marriage or don’t give a crap either way.

      I do actually agree on the faith-based schools issue - mostly because I don’t know why someone would want to teach at a religious school if they didn’t practice that religion.
      It’s a pity really, because this article makes a decent point re. allowing faith-based schools to discriminate in terms of employment. Then you had to go and say gays and lesbians are abnormal and invent facts about what “most Australians” believe, and the argument went all the way to Wrongtown fast.

    • Bearbrass says:

      03:15pm | 11/11/10

      If Austalians are so overwhelmingly supportive of “Gay Marriage” as the homosexual lobby claims, then why are mainstream politicians so unsupportive of it?

    • AB says:

      05:59pm | 16/11/10

      Bearbrass asks “If Austalians are so overwhelmingly supportive of “Gay Marriage” as the homosexual lobby claims, then why are mainstream politicians so unsupportive of it?”
      Because most pollies,  believe it or not are not as dumb as they look. They listen to the silent majority, and don’t believe that JJJ and GyABC are the mouth piece of Australia.

    • Emily H says:

      05:50pm | 10/11/10

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.” Are you implying then that any form of lifestyle that is not represented in the majority is not normal? It is not radical at all to expect that all people be treated with decency and respect regardless of those things that make them who they are- race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. Isn’t every child entitled to an amazing education? What happened to their human rights?  It is NOT ok to exclude a child from a school environment for any reason- least of all for the things that are intrinsic to who they are. Needless to say a child might have been attending their school for a long time before they come to terms with their sexuality and come out- a pretty hard time for a teenager- and you schools to have the right to force them to pick a new school?

      Also where on earth did the idea that most Australians accept that heterosexual marriage is the norm? ( I mean other than the fact that it’s the only legal kind so of course it’s the ‘norm’) did I miss the referendum on that one?

      As for fairytales, Cinderella and the life that present the happy ending as marrying the Prince- well I’d argue for their exclusion or dramatic re-writing as well- and not because they “celebrate heterosexuality” but because they are outdated- do we really need to teach little girls that a boy will come and save you and u will be happy forever more if only you can find prince charming. I would hope that we might find more worthy values to teach our children in this day and age.

      I think that if schools- or any other government funded project, chooses to ignore the rights of inclusion, education or freedom from discrimination they SHOULD lose their funding. My mother-in-law is part of the local Anglican church where they have a transgender person who transitioned while part of the congregation- and is still just as accepted as ever- Why on earth can’t schools do this? If I send my child to a faith school I’d expect them to learn the bible yes- but I would also expect them to learn good values that will stand them in good stead for later life- tolerance, acceptance, understanding, kindness, diversity.

      Normality is not defined by majority rule, the distribution of human rights are not limited to the accepted ‘norm’, your statements in this article are incredibly contradictory but you can pick out the sentenced placed for political correctness alone a mile away. It’s like saying “I don’t think we should have to include sexual minorities fully in our society, I do not think they are normal humans… oh but I’m not discriminating!!” How ridiculous.

    • Glenn Davey says:

      05:52pm | 10/11/10

      anyone who has a problem with gay marriage and thinks it should stay illegal forgets that marrying someone non-white used to be illegal and considered highly IMMORAL by previous generations. the modern-day nay-sayers like the author of this article will be remembered with as much shame and pity as those backwards, anti-love, anti-peace, anti-freedom, anti-HUMAN bigots of yesteryear.

    • Glenn Davey says:

      05:57pm | 10/11/10

      Kevin, you’re probably reading these, and you seem to have stopped approving new comments as they come in. You might feel a little lonely as time goes on, as you start to realise you have a very out-dated, and unpopular viewpoint. People really WANT to embrace people of different lifestyles, and what’s more, it flies in the face of equality to disallow some humans from marrying, but not others. It’s a good thing that you’re fighting a losing battle, sir.

      And. You. Know. It.

    • Rosie says:

      06:05pm | 10/11/10

      Kevin welcome to the 21st century! Because I am old fashion in the way I think I find myself learning each day on how to cope with certain stuff that I disagree with but sadly have to accept!

      The first time I saw two females fondling each I was very uncomfortable but as time passed and I found out that some of my friends and relatives were gay I began to accept. Today I am very comfortable knowing their preferred sexuality!

      However, these gay friends and relatives are very considerate and would never try to force anyone to accept as normal their preferred sexuality! All they want is to be loved and cared for by those that are prepared to return that love and care. Amongst family and friends a relative of mine married her partner in Vegas, it didn’t bother them that they couldn’t marry here in Australia. They adopted a child and now the child attends a public school. It was not necessary for them to explain their gay relationship when they enrolled the child. These people don’t make a fuss, they get on with their lives regardless like everyone else.

      The Greens fighting for gay rights are like the Muslims that are fighting for their religion to be accepted as normal in society! They want it no other way! Sadly we have good gay people and good Muslims that get on with their lives regardless, it is the pushy ones that spoil it for society!

    • Vicki PS says:

      10:25pm | 10/11/10

      Gracious no, it wouldn’t do for those gays and Muslims to get above themselves, now would it?  As long as they know their place and don’t get jumped up, I’m all for live and let live.  We might all be equal, but some of us are more equal than others, eh Rosie me old flannel-bloomers?

    • Rosie says:

      06:44am | 11/11/10

      Life for me and many others is getting on with life as you want it to be and best as you can make it! Many many pleasant things to do and achieve without wasting so much energy trying to be accepted as equal in society. Sadly we cannot all be equal it would be a boring world otherwise!

      Life is too short and through our achievements in the choices we make we have found great happiness!

      So Vicki PS, I will leave it for others to fight the fight for equal rights if it is going to make them happy! The Gay people that I know are very happy with the fact they have come out of the closet and accepted by those that love and care for them unconditionally! They biggest achievement is that they aren’t afraid anymore of their sexuality and will live and let live knowning they have the support of loved ones!

    • AliceC says:

      03:13pm | 11/11/10

      @Rosie

      And how do you think we got into a position where gay people can come out of the closet to their friends and family? It certinaly wasn’t by staying silent.

      Women fought long and hard to get the vote, was that wrong to do also? Should we have just stayed in the kitchen. popped out a few babies and left it at that? Times change, and the only way this happens is if someone makes a noise.

    • dingodave says:

      06:07pm | 10/11/10

      //promote the benefits of alternative sexuality and gender lifestyles to students.//
      //gay/lesbian activists argue that plays like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and fairy tales like Cinderella should not be taught //

      could you post links to prove this please??????????

    • Rossco says:

      06:12pm | 10/11/10

      Private organisations should have the right to choose any staff (or in this case students) as they so wish, including by gender, sexuality, race or religion. Their discriminatory policies will place scorn on themselves at their own peril. Government should not be able to mandate against this.

      Goverment departments should not be able to discriminate, including the positive hiring of persons because they are of a specific race, religion, sexuality, or gender.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:08pm | 10/11/10

      Not a problem. As long as the private organization does not accept the taxpayer dollar. In fact Equal Opportunity and Anti Discrimination laws cover private organizations regardless of whether or not they accept the taxpayer dollar so the point is moot. But yes, government should not be subsidizing private organizations that discriminate and yes, the government can legislate against these situations because it does have a mandate.

    • Rossco says:

      08:45am | 11/11/10

      “As long as the private organization does not accept the taxpayer dollar. “

      Agreed, if the private organisation was accepting any kind of government payments then it forfeits it’s right to be selective.

      “In fact Equal Opportunity and Anti Discrimination laws cover private organizations regardless of whether or not they accept the taxpayer dollar so the point is moot.”

      My point was that it should not cover them anymore. They should be allowed to hire or allow people into their organisation at their own will.

    • Rich says:

      10:14am | 11/11/10

      Then I suppose parents who send their children to private schools are not using the government schools they are paying tax for and thus should get a tax refund ?

      Generally the wealthy send their kids to these schools and tend to pay more tax than some people earn before tax.

    • DG says:

      11:12am | 11/11/10

      Rich -

      Actually, by funding the public schools the rich obtain the financial benefits that are associated with higher educational outcomes for the community at large such as lower population increases, lower crime rates, lower rates of dependency on other public services.

      Just because they don’t use the actually classrooms at the school down the road does not mean that they do not obtain benefit. Perhaps some schools (and parents) need to teach that just because you do not personally use a service that you do not obtain the benefit from the service. Consider also the food that taxpayers put into the mouths of prison inmates, state and federal funding of infrastructure projects that increase the economic viability of remote areas and as such reduce strain on inner city infrastructure, reduce poverty and hence crime rates.

      You do not need to use a service to obtain a benefit from it - some could argue that the best services are the ones that provide benefit without you having to get involved at all (such police, public transport and health services).

    • Good grief says:

      06:26pm | 10/11/10

      As much as I detest the Green party and everything it stands for, this one time their stance on this issue is correct.

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.”

      Such a lifestyle is acceptable.

      “If schools refuse to implement such extreme policies, as they run counter to a school’s religious beliefs and mission, then the Greens argue that such schools should lose funding.”

      Saying that people should not be discriminated against because of their sexuality is not an extreme policy. In this day and age, claiming the right to discriminate against a group of people is the extremist position.

      “Ignored is that most Australians accept the fact that marriage is between a man and a women and that heterosexuality is the norm.”

      I remember a rather large group of people where the majority accepted that they were better than another group of people. It was in Germany in the 1940’s… In the 1900’s, people in America thought slavery was a fine and noble tradition! These days they know better. Majority opinion doesn’t affect how moral a position is.

    • Georginorx says:

      01:49pm | 11/11/10

      +2 to Good Grief
      Thanks for saying all this for me. I agree! The Nazi thing was a bit much maybe.

    • Lachlan says:

      06:29pm | 10/11/10

      “...such policies will mean that every student in the state will be taught that more extreme forms of sexuality and gender relations are normal.”

      I challenge the writer of this piece to tell these two girls, to their faces, that they’re not normal. I bet you wouldn’t have the guts.

    • SIlvio says:

      06:38pm | 10/11/10

      Well said, Kevin.

      Personally I am a member of a small but growing faith with some non-majority views, and one day I hope to be able to send my children to a school that refuses to employ left-handed people or Collingwood supporters, as I don’t want my kids to have these kind of role models at an impressionable time in their lives.

    • Daniel says:

      08:34am | 11/11/10

      I am totally with you on this one. Collingwood supporters make up a statistical minority of the Australian population and therefore are not the norm. I would not want their one eyed views painted in a positive light.

      *Wont somebody think of the children!*

    • Richard says:

      07:27pm | 10/11/10

      My only problem is the revised interpretation of the word “marriage”. I was taught that “marriage” was a union between a man and a woman. I have no problem with gays having a same-sex union and all the equality they are rightly to be accorded.

      If this is all about eqality then why not change the legal reference to “legal union” or some such term that doesn’t refer to any particular sexual composition.

      Whatever…but please don’t bend the sanctity of the word “marriage” and all it means to folks like me just to satisfy some equality whim….or I’ll be more offended than the Gays currently are.

    • David LD says:

      07:52pm | 10/11/10

      Not sure if you realise this, Kevin, but the church has a well documented history of employing gays and lesbians.

      Get over it you dinosaur.

      Here’s something you and your generation just don’t seem to understand; WE DON’T CARE!

      My generation doesn’t give two shits about someone’s sexuality, and the sooner you bunch of puritan wankers stop dictating morality from your perceived and handily imagined high ground, perhaps we’ll get some goddamned (ha!) equality in this country.

      You can piss and moan all you want about a “radical” political party in an effort to mindlessly fearmonger before a state election, but it’s not going to make any difference to the people that wouldn’t be voting for them anyway.

      At least they’re trying to stand up for what they believe in, and unlike the Labor/Liberal duopoly, it’s not about kicking other people in society when they’re down.

      /Not gay.
      //Married.
      ///Sex Party and Greens voter.
      ////Bite me.

    • Stephanie says:

      07:53pm | 10/11/10

      Um - Barry - get your stats right dude - 96% of Ugandans do not consider homosexuality against morals or whatever nonsense you spouted up there. I’d venture an educated guess , as a fellow African that that 96% of them are too terrified of being put to death to say otherwise . A few religious nuts spitting out filth and degrading their fellows does not constitute a majority. No matter how much they want it to be so.

    • Duke says:

      09:01pm | 10/11/10

      “faith-based schools, because of their religious nature, have every right to ensure that who they enrol are able to accept and live by the moral and spiritual values considered central to the schools’ mission”

      Unadulterated bollocks.

      If a child’s superstition deluded parents enrol them in a school based on an invisible skypilot, and the child as it grows discovers they can think and develop a moral compass beyond medieval cant, the school has no more right to dictate its bigoted restrictions on them than a circus ringmaster.

    • Biteme says:

      09:40pm | 10/11/10

      Regardless of religion or culture, we live and abide by Australian Law.
      If Australian Law does not allow discrimination of same sex, then I don’t care what the school or how much you pay to go to that school the Law comes first.
      Australian Laws protect all Australian freedoms that have been passed under the Parliamentary consensus. If this school has broken the law then it should pay the penalty and let all other religious institutions take note that the people of Australia first priority is the law we voted for not your 2,000 page fairy tale books.

    • Adam says:

      09:44pm | 10/11/10

      Did this guy even read his article? It didn’t make ANY sense. All his arguments were all over the place, and he made constant links and conclusions that were completely non-sensical.

      If you’re going to be a hater, at least have a coherent train of thought.

    • Tombowler says:

      09:50pm | 10/11/10

      The gay community has a problem in that they self-identify as such.

      If Gays want to be a normal part of society then stop throwing bloody parades to celebrate how different you are. Straight people don’t throw ‘straight parades’ or have ‘straight bars’.

      What you do with your genitals is nobody’s business- it shouldn’t define you. It is simply a part of your make up - like your personality, looks, gender, wealth, smarts, sense of humour etc.

      In this light I don’t throw a bloody parade and start alliances and anti-discrimination bodies for the chronically politically incorrect although i believe i have suffered discrimination for this personal, hard-wired trait my entire life. Try bagging boat people to the lefty wing-nut uni professor in an essay and see how you go (regardless of the legal argument behind it)...

      Whats the f’ing hullaballo? I wasn’t allowed to go to my formal because I was seen smoking outside a pub the week before (not in uniform) I didn’t call up British American and the bloody paper to take the case. I dealt with it cos I went to a strict boys school and the rules was the rules.

      The consistent drawing of false walls by minority groups is self-defeating, shameless crap and needs to stop. i don’t care about your bloody sexuality, race, religion or anything other than how you personally interact with me and others. I do care if you consistently hassle me about being discriminated against because you insist on dividing yourself from society.

    • thatcherschild says:

      11:50pm | 10/11/10

      Well Tombowler, Im glad you personally dont care what I do with my genitals, I just wish the govt/bible bashers felt the same way.
      I have never tried to divide myself from society, it just seems that society has always wanted to exclude me.
      How many times in your life have you been “consistently hassled” by a gay person complaining about discrimination? How many gay people have you actually sat down and spoken with?
      Or is it just the fact that we get one day a year (Pride/Mardi Gras) where a group of individuals get together and for a few hours know what it feels like to be part of the majority?
      Or maybe its all these media stories about our pesky community (about 1.1 million of us in Oz) that expose the bigotry, hate and discrimination we face?
      You dont like the idea of gay pubs and clubs? Maybe if “straight"pubs and clubs were more welcoming we wouldnt need gay venues, then again I still bear the scar on my face from one visit to a straight bar, seems some straight men tend to resort to violence when a gay girl turns them down.
      Well done for bringing the words lefties, refugess and illegal into the forum on gay discrimination, it says a lot about you.

    • Amy says:

      10:15pm | 10/11/10

      This is ridiculous.  6 years ago, I was 17 and graduating from high school.  At my formal, two girls in a relationship (one from my school, one from another) turned up together and were not only accepted unconditionally, but ended up winning Best Dressed Couple (and I call unfair!  Two gorgeous girls in pretty dresses will beat badly matched dress and tie combinations and ill-fitting suits every time!). 

      The difference between my situation and the current one is that the school administration and faculty had nothing to do with the formal, and as such, had no authority over who went to the formal with whom.  Regardless, the student body would have had something to say about it if they had.  Who says a bunch of teenagers can’t handle themselves with moral integrity?  This situation is simply ridiculous.  Pretending what makes you uncomfortable doesn’t exist will not make it go away.  Trust me, I try it with spiders in the lounge room all the time….

    • Louise says:

      10:22pm | 10/11/10

      The idea that all Catholics - especially Australian Catholics, just blindly follow the dogma of the Italian (and so often corrupt) Vatican is so wrong.

      I was raised in a Catholic family and my children are baptised and attend our local Catholic school. My aunty is nun and my uncle was a priest. I have many gay and lesbian friends.

      Our parish priest encourages all people to be part of our community. He went to the trouble of printing an advertisement in the local paper encouraging homosexuals as well as those “more conservative than Pell” to come together as a community.

      The vice principal of the local Catholic Girls High School is in an open lesbian relationship and there is a long waiting list for the school.

      As if Christ would condone the blatant oppression of people based on their sexuality. The opposition many Catholics have to homosexuality has little to do with faith and spirituality.

    • stephen says:

      12:11am | 11/11/10

      No-one condones the ‘oppression of people based on their sexuality’.
      But homosexuals don’t want equality ; they want privileges.
      They will want to legislate uniformity of perception, thereby easing their conscience. When everybody sees the wisdom of their own foolishness, then us - the ‘normals’ - can ease ours.
      One of the forms of recognition they demand is of a communal type ; possibly they are wise here : numbers matter, specially so, if they can argue that Employers and authority figures have undue influence over discrimination.
      I think, however, that they whine only about bad manners, and that if Gays would only show us what sand they are made of and do what so many did so long ago : elope.

    • AliceC says:

      03:24pm | 11/11/10

      @stephen

      ‘But homosexuals don’t want equality ; they want (sic) privileges.’

      Please provide evidence of this…..

      (since when does equaility=privileges)

    • Pete says:

      07:01am | 11/11/10

      bring on the greens I say,  then children in catholic schools will be better informed and educated than ever before.  Why does the church fear gays and yet condones rampant pedophilia and avbuse amongst it’s clergy?  Very twisted point of view in my opinion.

    • alternate lifestyle says:

      07:06am | 11/11/10

      You’re a brave man Kevin. Of course schools can and do set their own standards. Show me one set of ‘straight’ parents who’ll applaud any of their children turning gay. Yeah still waiting ..

      To replace the word gay with black or aboriginal is completely loosing the point and due to populism ignoring the fact that being gay is a lifestyle choice and people aren’t born gay. Naturally the more accepting people are of this alternate lifestyle, the more gay people ..

      OK, officially in hiding now.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:29am | 11/11/10

      @ alternative lifestyle

      “Show me one set of ‘straight’ parents who’ll applaud any of their children turning gay. Yeah still waiting ..”
      You must be one of those people who casually drops lines like ‘but seriously, if your child married a black man you’d be angry too’ at parties, and everyone just stops drinking and stares at them until they leave….
      Oh, and my parents had no problems when my sibling came out.  Your ‘wait’ is over.

      “the fact that being gay is a lifestyle choice and people aren’t born gay.”
      Biology disagrees with you.  And even if it didn’t, what’s your point?

    • AliceC says:

      03:27pm | 11/11/10

      @alternate lifestyle

      We rejoiced when ym cousin came out (including his parents), so example #2.

      Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice, unlike being an uneducated homophobe…

    • Green Tyrants says:

      07:22am | 11/11/10

      What is it with you progressive bigots?, you want to impose your values onto society like Communists without taking into consideration the values of others. You are starting to sound like the Taliban. Don’t bother with the Christians did or said this or that argument in the past, as that is not relevant.

      In Australia we have freedoms, freedom of religion is one of them, that means if a Christian or Muslim school does not want openly Gay teachers teaching their children, then that is their right. The same should apply to Religious schools that may not want to employ a teacher of a different faith, i hope the same would apply to an organisation that promotes Gay & Lesbian issues, it should not be forced to employ a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim if they did not want to.

      Most religious people in Australia leave Gays & Lesbians alone despite the provocative ridicule displayed at the G&L Mardi Gras and the continual vicious verbal attacks launched by the extremists in the Gay & lesbian community and from the loony Greens.
      So please just let us do our thing as we let you do yours, don’t use the wrongs of the past to bash up peaceful Christians who may want to raise their children with morals and values that are from a higher authority rather than the “change like the weather” temporary values that humans adopt to satisfy their earthly desires.

    • Chris L says:

      02:09pm | 11/11/10

      I don’t understand this victim mentality. Whenever gay people want access to the same rights and treatment as everyone else it gets called an attack on “our” values.

      I see the same response whenever an atheist expresses their views about religion. The religious then wail about being “attacked”.

      You want to know about being attacked? Think about how people still get beaten up for being homosexual. That’s an attack.

      I prescribe a cup of concrete.

    • AliceC says:

      03:30pm | 11/11/10

      “Most religious people in Australia leave Gays & Lesbians alone”

      I’d say the gay people who have been attacked, discriminated against, or had their families turn their back on them, would have a different view.

      ‘So please just let us do our thing as we let you do yours’. They can’t! They don’t have the rights to marry or adopt children for example. Makes it a little hard to ‘do your thing’ when the law won’t allow you to…

    • Tim says:

      07:39am | 11/11/10

      The school has a rule that only students from year 11 can attend the formal. So if people in same sex relationships want to be treated the same as everyone else, accept that this rule applies to everyone and get over it, or be accused of wanting not equality but special treatment.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:52am | 11/11/10

      All these girls are going to achieve is that formals may end up being banned so as to avoid all the issues.  Surely a child can be told NO you cannot do what you want.  Year 11 dance is for Year 11 students, if you bring a year 10 student from the same school all it does send a ripple through the school and the next year you can rest assured that other girls in Year 10 will want to get themselves a girlfriend from the year above so as to attend the dance and be popular.  If a Principal of a school is not supported when they make rules then it undermines her position.  I totally agree with the ban.    Surely a girl can attend a dance without her girlfriend and still have fun.  If she can’t at this stage of her life then she is destined for some interesting times. 

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Alternative Lifestyle Indeed says:

      08:25am | 11/11/10

      Actually Kevin, the courts are doing their best to stop faith-based schools, esp., catholic ones, from spreading their particular form of alternate sexuality teaching, as has been seen from the recent outings by members of the clergy, for shall we say “over-involvement” in their students sex ed classes.
      IGGS said nothing, in their statement, to remove the view taken by most people that the school was discriminating on the basis of the girls sexuality, and to say “I am very disappointed that the girls feel they are being discriminated against” is utter bollocks and gives the headmistress absolutely zero points in the clever meter, in terms of how people will view her/their decision to hide behind the schools acceptance policy, which obviously is seen as not needed.

      As to the rubbish from “alternative lifestyle”, your spelling alone gives plenty of evidence of your educational standards, and the views expressed locate you either in Western Sydney or Woodridge. I was impressed that you are actually capable of operating a computer, but understanding of your inability to actually grasp what gay lifestyle is about. Can you perhaps point out for those of us less fortunate than yourself, why anyone would “choose” to be gay, considering the side effects of that “choice”- bashings, murders, intolerance to name just a few. To even write those words reminds me of a quote, you may like to bear in mind the next time you choose to address those of us who think; “better to close your mouth and be thought a fool, than to open it, and remove all doubt”.

    • Tombarina says:

      08:51am | 11/11/10

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal.”

      Well, Kev - it IS if you’re one of the 250,000 Aussies (1-2pc, based on your undoubtedly tirelessly-researched figures).

      Also, not sure if Uganda’s quite the beacon of exemplary morality you nuttily dream it is. Last time I checked, they were quite keen on bumping off albinos due to the wealth’n'health-enhancing powers of their body parts (distilled into potions by witchdoctors), phone-tapping’s something of a national sport, and corruption is rife. Yay for Uganda!

      You’re entitled to your opinion and I do accept that private schools can set their own agenda, the examples you cite are inane.  Kev, I’m only telling you this because we’re mates, we’re close, we’re buddies - you’re a teeny bit of a knob.

    • shane says:

      09:18am | 11/11/10

      sucked in biggoted wankers…
      he he he…  this has to REALY stick in their craw…
      the reason religous schools exist is to indonctrinate and brainwash kids to their wacky views….......
      In NSW, Religious schools are having a moan and a whinge about being told to offer ethics classes at the same time as religious education for those who want a private education minus the brainwashing bit.  They religo shools say everything you need in that class can be found in the Bible and that’s why they object, but a quick read of Liviticus and exodus dispells that hoarey old chest-nut.
      NO SCHOOL should be allowed to discriminate like this… there are laws that the rest of us must follow, why not them?  not to mention it makes their views look a few hundred years old..
      kevin donnely’s attitude needs to jump forward a century or too as well.

    • AJ says:

      09:30am | 11/11/10

      That was hilarious! A very amusing start to the morning.

      “Even though gays and lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party wants to promote such a life-style as acceptable and normal”.

      Damn those “radical” members of the Greens Party! How dare they want to tell the gay and lesbian youth of Australia that they don’t have any reason to live their lives full of fear and shame because of something as minor as their sexuality. How dare they tell them that homosexuality is acceptable and normal. How dare they promote tolerance and understanding of gays and lesbians and maybe, just maybe, prevent a young gay or lesbian person from committing suicide.

      Of course, as amusing as this article was to read it was equally scary. Very, very scary.

    • Jane says:

      09:39am | 11/11/10

      Any schools that take government funding, whether they are public or private, should not be exempt from government anti-discrimination laws.

    • Pete says:

      11:32am | 11/11/10

      never mind the funding, currently they are not exempt from anti discrimination laws and this should be enforced

    • astrid says:

      11:05am | 11/11/10

      Im pretty sure that after a while that Christian and Catholic school will have to conform to the gay and lesbians rights. I cannot see churches and other religious institutions being allowed to teach that homosexuality is wrong and if they do could be liable for deformation and imprisionment.

    • Me and My Left wing Chevy says:

      02:15pm | 11/11/10

      I agree Astrid, pet. After all what’s a little deformation between pals? As for the imprisionment, that only ever happens to the French.

    • Glenn Davey says:

      11:23am | 11/11/10

      I think we all showed Kevin how WRONG he is about ordinary Australians. He is labouring under false impressions of his fellow countrypeople.

    • Tombarina says:

      03:58pm | 11/11/10

      Nup.

      Kev’s view of the world (a view from a great height, I might add - he’s on a soapbox perched atop a high horse which is standing on the moral high ground) is such that he’ll dismiss naysayers as simply rabble-rousing 1-2 percenters.

      Basically, if you disagree with Kev, then you’re clearly a poof, a leso or a (horror of horrors) Greens voter. Or all three. And, until you see the error of your ways, you can fly solo at your school formal.

    • Chris L says:

      01:17pm | 11/11/10

      Your concern is that catholic schools will be discriminated against by not allowing them to discriminate against gay people? Are you thinking about what you’re saying?

    • Rachel says:

      04:55pm | 11/11/10

      Not being allowed to teach what you believe and being forced to teach what you don’t believe are two different things.

    • Fred says:

      03:18pm | 11/11/10

      Not accepting that the Bible is the word of God, the Creator of all things - does not make any difference to the end result.
      God implemented day and night and there is nothing you can do to change that.
      The day of judgement will come and there is nothing you can do about that either - no matter how “normal” you think you are as a gay or lesbian.

      The funding for schools are not based on what we believe but on the number of children in a given school - or do you want to take the funding away from some children and not others just because you don’t believe what they believe?

      There are a lot of ‘Christians’ that have some problems in living a true Christian life but then most people do break the laws of this country at some stage as well - we are all sinful by birth.

      I am astounded how bigoted gays, lesbians and their supporters are and yet their platform is supposed to be one of accepting others no matter what.

      A person having reached the age to attend year 11 in school can also have the freedom to select another school - a public school if they want to.

    • Tombarina says:

      06:44pm | 11/11/10

      Your surname wouldn’t be “Nile” by any chance?

    • Tom says:

      03:46pm | 11/11/10

      The hypocrisy of the Pro Gay Lobby is unbelievably astounding. They seem to want to stop at nothing until they force the world into accepting their lifestyle as ‘normal’. 

      I love gay people, they have intrinsic value not because they are gay, but because they are human.  But I don’t have to accept your lifestyle as ‘normal’.  It seems in a free country, I am not free to disagree with you.  And not accepting the gay lifestyle as normal does not mean I have an irrational fear i.e. phobia of homosexuals.  My gay friends would not be my friends otherwise.

      Bottom- line to the Pro Gay Lobby…“stop pushing you intolerant views on to me”.

    • thatcherschild says:

      06:17pm | 11/11/10

      Tom, please tell me what this gay lifestyle is that Im supposed to be forcing everyone else to accept?
      Ive been out for 30 years (and Im still waiting to recieve my copy of the Gay Agenda) and my “lifestyle” is exactly the same as my straight friends and relatives.
      Like most gay people my life revolves around work and leisure, when we do go out and socialise its usually with straight friends for a night at the theatre or dinner - do you consider this to be an abnormal lifestyle?
      The only difference is what happens in the bedroom, which is quite frankly none of your business.
      There is no such thing as the ‘pro gay lobby”, or indeed a gay lobby, what we have is a group of people who are discriminated against in law, trying to redress the balance.
      You cannot make a claim that you have gay friends then tag their lives as abnormal, I would love to hear what your gay friends make of that comment.
      The gay community dont live in a seperate part of Oz known as Gayland, we live everywhere, we work everywhere, we socialise everywhere, we come from every class and culture, so each gay persons lifestyle is different, rather like straight people really.
      I would love to see you address your ridiculous comments to gay members of our defence forces, police, ambos etc, do you think a gay soldier fighting in Afghanistan to (protect your lifestyle) is living a “gay lifestyle”?
      Bottom line - bigoted anti-gay ...stop pushing your intolerant views on me.

    • cRook says:

      04:59pm | 11/11/10

      Equality means no special treatment because you’re in a minority group.

    • stephen says:

      07:19pm | 11/11/10

      Isn’t it about time we all started talking about about Joel Monaghan and his randy Deputy Dawg ?
      (I mean, it is similar, isn’t it ?)

    • P. Darvio says:

      10:56am | 12/11/10

      Religious ethics and morals (so called religious Standards) - written and defined by a group of goat herders who lived 3000 years ago, in tents, who knew more back then than modern science and modern secular ethics and morals does today, and who wrote religious texts that are the most hateful, violent, war mongering evil one could imagine. Religion and Standards - you are joking.

    • Freedom of Choice says:

      10:09pm | 12/11/10

      Rich says:10:14am | 11/11/10
      “Then I suppose parents who send their children to private schools are not using the government schools they are paying tax for and thus should get a tax refund ?
      “Generally the wealthy send their kids to these schools and tend to pay more tax than some people earn before tax.”

      DG says:11:12am | 11/11/10
      “Rich - Actually, by funding the public schools the rich obtain the financial benefits that are associated with higher educational outcomes for the community at large such as lower population increases, lower crime rates, lower rates of dependency on other public services.”

      Some good points Rich and DG.  DG, that cuts both ways.  By parents paying part of the cost of their kids’ education in a private school, as well as paying taxes, they are providing benefits to those who use the public schools and their parents - reduced education costs, thereby fewer mortgage defaults or rent shortfalls, lower crime rates, lower rates of dependency on other public services (and NGOs), and the ability to afford to have kids in the first place.

      Instead of all this argy bargy about who is subsidising whom, who is benefiting etc., I think that parents should just get a voucher (funded by tax revenue) to spend at the school of their choice (whether public or private) with the same dollar amount for each child.  Then if people want to send their kids to a private school, they would have to cough up the difference.

    • Murray says:

      02:23pm | 13/11/10

      To answer the question about teachers wanting to teach at religious schools: they pay more, have amazing facilities and they expel students who cause trouble. Religious schools manage this due to receiving more money from the tax payer than public schools.

      In fact, private schools take the students that are easiest and cheapest to teach then educate them at far greater expense than government schools.  Government schools achieve fine results, look at the selective state schools or non-selective senior Colleges in the ACT, all done without fifteen rugby pitches and a couple of Steinway subsidized by the tax payer. A private education does not save the government money, it costs them more.

      Religious schools violate the ethics they espouse by denying greatly needed funds to the most needy people in the community.  State and territory authorities are so financially constrained that they can’t address the aching needs of our poorest families. Instead Australia invests in schools like Ivanhoe who provide tax payer subsidized mixers so “nice gels” can meet “nice chaps” and breed another generation of the conscienceless and unethical products of Australia’s elite schools. 

      Around 35% of students attend religious schools and around 5% of Australian attend regular religious services. This disparity tells me that other values than religion are at play.  A truly ethical person wouldn’t touch a Grammar school with a ten foot pole.

      As an English teacher, I can assure you that your assertions that anyone would ban Shakespeare are deranged and smack of that great legal fiction “homosexual panic”.  What should be of more concern to you is government schools that can’t afford to buy books because of the money spent on religious schools.

    • Wendy Kennedy says:

      08:57am | 15/11/10

      @Emily 10.11.2010
      Your comments regarding your school and religious studies held merit until you generalised and said “you’re not a baby boomer are you?”.
      Never generalise Emily.  Gay people are human beings.  They did not ‘choose’ their sexual orientation, they inherited it.  They struggle with it for a vast early period of their lives and they eventually have to try to come to terms with society’s attitude towards it and their own inner voice.  I have a gay daughter and ‘yes’ I am a baby boomer incredibly insulted at your generalisation.  I like Muse, Powderfinger, Kings of Leon, and most music.  You see, just because you are a number, doesn’t preclude you from hearing, listening, seeing.  When you advance further in years, this is a lesson you will hopefully have learnt, and learnt well.

    • Askmeloan says:

      06:08pm | 03/08/11

      scissors credit card image, shrek end credits you tube. va beach schools federal credit union, 4000 loan. capitol one credit card online payments, how to accept canada credit card.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter