UK 'second most popular country'

Generali

blueboy43 wrote: »

Hmmm, male homosexuality was still illegal in Queensland until 1990 and after that in Tasmania.

Outside of Sydney and Melbourne in my experience I would say it is worse than UK - plenty of casual homophobia in Australia when I have been there, particularly at the footie and cricket.

What certainly helps is that the Sydney Mardi Gras is more of a public event and celebration than any equivalent event the UK by a factor of 10

Ok, maybe in country towns. TBH I don't have huge experience of Aus outside Sydney so I can't comment.

I maintain that in general in Sydney, homosexuality is more accepted here than in London.

The most important part I think is that if you don't like someone because they are gay or black or white then it's ok to say it. Britain has lost that part of freedom of speech and is a worse place for it.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

The most important part I think is that if you don't like someone because they are gay or black or white then it's ok to say it. Britain has lost that part of freedom of speech and is a worse place for it.

i couldn't disagree more gen. i think it should be wrong to voice a homophobic or racist opinion. however there are times they are voiced in the UK it's just they are never left unchallenged.

i can think of an example last night in fact on a BBC series called 'teenage meets old age'. a white old woman was expressing racist views about the family of the black teenager she was staying with and the teenager pulled her up on them - although the old lady was allowed to make her views clear.

ninky_2

it's not as if the 'free speech' idea has reduced racisim in australia is it? infact it seems to be getting worse. as the spate of violent attacks on indian students show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8448993.stm

bendix

ninky wrote: »

at least our news anchors don't come out with homophobic claptrap like this.

what they gain in sunshine the australians lose in bigotry.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/03/07/ron-wilson-calls-mardi-gras-disgusting/46388

A Channel Ten news interview with Mardi Gras co-chair Peter Urmson has turned nasty, with anchor Ron Wilson branding the parade as “disgusting”.
What begins as a general discussion about the political themes of this year’s Mardi Gras quickly turns into a tense back-and-forth between the two when Wilson began questioning the relevance and appropriateness of the parade in 2011.
“Some of the spectacles you’re seeing, I’m assuming would even make you cringe. It becomes an exploitation almost of a sexual image rather than trying to explore the diversity of lifestyle,” Wilson said.
“Our community is extremely colourful, and we celebrate our diversity through…” Urmson replied. Before Wilson interrupted by saying “there’s a difference between colourful and disgusting”.
At one point, Wilson even questions why the gay and lesbian community are pushing same-sex marriage as an issue.
“There’s acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Why not let time take care of the gay marriage issue rather than pushing it.”
A clearly dumbfounded Urmson responded by saying:
“Because if we don’t push for it, no one’s going to.”

There is nothing homophobic in this. The news anchor is objecting to the sexualisation of mardi gras which, if you had ever scene it, goes way beyond what might be accepted as lewd in any other walk of life.

Giant phalluses, simulated oral sex in public and on floats. Nudity.

I have no problem with any of this per se, but the debate was around what seems to be acceptable on the gay Mardi Gras parade would NOT be accepted on a simiilar straight parade.

Wilson was objecting to double standards. That is all.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Wilson was objecting to double standards. That is all.

and the comment on gay marriages? was that just about double standards? why was it even relevant to the discussion on the mardi gras?

he's had to apologise now on the channel anyway so i guess his bosses thought it wasn't just about double standards.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

it's not as if the 'free speech' idea has reduced racisim in australia is it? infact it seems to be getting worse. as the spate of violent attacks on indian students show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8448993.stm

Good old ninky. Selective messaging as always. It doesn't necessarily follow that an assault on someone who is indian is a racist attack - in fact it's rather racist of you to suggest it is.

The Indian High Commission is aware of 152 attacks on Indians in Sydney. Of these, only 23 can categorically be said to be racially motivated, as in they included the attacker referring to the victim's race. All of these attacks took place in an area called Harris Park which has become an Indian area, attracting students because of low rents. Accordign to NSW Police, Indians are not overrepresented in crime statistics in Sydney, Harris Park or NSW generally.

Indeed, this is supported by Sydney-based United Indian Association who accept the attacks are not necessarily racially motivated. Their head said the students are easy targets for hoodlum drug addicts in the area who see them as soft targets.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i think it should be wrong to voice a homophobic or racist opinion.

What other topics would you like to have banned from public debate?

If you ban people from discussing things you disagree with you are setting off down a very dangerous path.

I'm with Voltaire on this one. This Socialist thing of not allowing dissenting views I find very frightening.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

and the comment on gay marriages? was that just about double standards? why was it even relevant to the discussion on the mardi gras?

he's had to apologise now on the channel anyway so i guess his bosses thought it wasn't just about double standards.

It sounds like practical common sense to me. Why push something you know is going to be contentious and divisive and just let it come naturally in the course of time.

Nowhere did he say gay marriage is wrong or offensive. Ergo, it's not homophobic.

You see, this is so typical. Anything that questions politically correct views or doesnt whole heartedly support them is seen as anti or offensive. It isnt. It is possible to offer a contrary view, without being homophobic.

That he had to apologise says more about the political correctness pervasive in modern society than it does about the rightness or wrongness of his views. And, of course, the power of the pink dollar.

Generali

bendix wrote: »

Good old ninky. Selective messaging as always. It doesn't necessarily follow that an assault on someone who is indian is a racist attack - in fact it's rather racist of you to suggest it is.

The Indian High Commission is aware of 152 attacks on Indians in Sydney. Of these, only 23 can categorically be said to be racially motivated, as in they included the attacker referring to the victim's race. All of these attacks took place in an area called Harris Park which has become an Indian area, attracting students because of low rents. Accordign to NSW Police, Indians are not overrepresented in crime statistics in Sydney, Harris Park or NSW generally.

Indeed, this is supported by Sydney-based United Indian Association who accept the attacks are not necessarily racially motivated. Their head said the students are easy targets for hoodlum drug addicts in the area who see them as soft targets.

As you may be aware, I worked as a Uni tutor for a time and pretty much all of my students were Asian nationals studying in Australia for the first time.

To generalise, the Indian students were disproportionately likely to live in rougher areas (eg Harris Park), travel late at night on public transport and carry items of value with them. As you say, they also apparently had a reputation as a soft touch among the muggers of Sydney especially if they were roughed up a bit. Students from other parts of Asia were more likely to live centrally and so leave valuables at home before going out in the evening.

RJP33

DaddyBear wrote: »

Obviously a poll of people who think that the UK is just London (most Americans). How we came second is beyond me.

Wonderful culture and history across the country?