• 232
  • 11670
Image for Burns Takes On Channel Nine

Burns Takes On Channel Nine

Gary Burns has announced that he’s lodged a complaint with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board against Channel Nine’s The Footy Show.

The complaint refers to a sketch that aired earlier this month, where footy players Andrew and Matthew Johns reflect on their childhood, growing up with a fictitious gay sibling, Elton Johns.

The sketch flashes back to childhood moments where Andrew and Matthew are playing footy, while Elton is described as ‘unco-ordinated’ and a ‘hazard’, dressed in camp sunglasses and an orange feather boa. At one point the father of the boys takes young Elton back to the hospital where he was born and asks for a refund, saying that the boy is ‘faulty’. Another moment sees the father talk about how he thinks Elton was switched at birth, because of his homosexuality. Photos also depict young Elton kissing a pig, and recoiling from breast feeding as an infant.

Gary Burns told SX that the sketch was “a very clear-cut case of anti-gay vilification” and that the humour “clearly portrays homosexual men as objects of ridicule.” Burns said that if the jokes were made against Jews, Aboriginals or Asian people then they’d never make it on TV.

Matthew Johns has since been stood down indefinitely from his hosting role on the Nine Network program after becoming embroiled in a group sex scandal, kicked off by an episode of ABC’s Four Corners. Johns has also lost his position on the Melbourne Storm coaching staff.

“I am asking for a full page apology in the pages of SX at the moment,” Burns told Same Same. “I will also be seeking a ‘on air’ apology on the footy show from its presenters. Gay footballer Ian Roberts phoned me yesterday offering his support.”

Burns told Same Same that jokes like these can drive gay teenagers to suicide.

“Pernicious comments like these question the self worth in many gay teenagers because of issues of low self-esteem when dealing with their own sexuality [and] coming out… Gay teenagers are vulnerable and commentary suggesting gay men are sick or faulty is unlawful homosexuality vilification. It’s not acceptable to paint homosexuals as products of ridicule anymore.”

Burns is still pushing ahead with legal action against Jeff Kennett after her refused to apologise for comments he made linking paedophilia and homosexuality.

Watch the clip below. Do you think it’s offensive? Vote here.

Social

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
9460
zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Urban, I have nothing do with ACON other than a little volunteering work 4 years ago. I know nobody there. You're are paranoid, dude.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009



And you are a liar. Dude. The reason you defend yet another indefensible atrocity is that ACON is potentially the most resourced entity to help out with this case – but hey, that‘s several hundred crates of chardy isn’t it.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I know what I am doing Zebra.
What have you ever done to stop intolerance ?

Tim D

Tim D said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Urban can you pls ACON out of this, it has nothing to do with them.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

This has plenty to do with ACON, Tim D. ACON could just as easily help this anti-gay lawsuit out as they did NMG (except there’s less in it for them as their CEO is not out to get a major profile lift - as was the case with NMG). Hell, they spend enough other monies on non-AIDS related gay politicking. Can you think of any other similarly gay funded entity in this town for this?

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I know what I am doing Zebra.
What have you ever done to stop intolerance ?

Fighting censorship is a positive thing in that regard. Some people wanted Will & Grace band because they found it "offensive". You are setting a dangerous precedent.

The comedy sketch has not gone down well. The footy show is in a dire state. Things are actually not as bad as you make them out to be. Censoring a comedy sketch, that most people agree wasn't especially funny, and has been slammed by the media, doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Fine, then if that's your opinion, you've stated it, now what are you so eagerly fighting the idea of legal action for?

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Zebra homophobia is dangerous and kills ?

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009




because you are gagging something that has already been widely condemed and the footy show have their tail between their legs.... current state isn't all that bad...... censorship would raise more issues than it solves......

spend your money and time on something more productive

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Will & Grace did not promote hatred of gays via vile sick homophobic humour. You are promoting a ‘dangerous precedent’ within our community – that of sitting back and allowing us to be portrayed as disposable flawed rejects.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



You missed the point. Censorship can work for and against us.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

because you are gagging something that has already been widely condemed and the footy show have their tail between their legs....
spend your money and time on something more productive

That could have been said after the very first effort to stop antigay propaganda. We need to remain vigilant or the cause is dead - much the same as the safe sex maeesgae needs keeping intact and not turning into a joke.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Except that comedy sketch wasn't anti-gay propaganda. And if it was there'd be a whole host of other censoring to do.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Censorship is the prevention of any message - this is entirely different - the message has been sent out and needs redressing.

In any case, your definition is inaccurate: Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organisations as determined by a censor.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I am seeking a remedy of public dimensions to address their unlawful conduct.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Taking them to court is my last option.
But I wont run away from a fight mate.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Meaning future crass gay jokes will get censored? Big Gay Al might not be a parody, more designed to make you laugh in disgust?

Would the "average" person out there know to differentiate? Or does the rank stereotyping just encourage hate?..... this is what people are saying about the footy show sketch.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Crass gay jokes may or may not be in breach of anti-vilification laws - the Footy Show's was.



Would the "average" person out there know to differentiate?

Irrelevant! The average person out there is fed subliminal messages and unwittingly absorbs those as fact.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 1st Jun, 2009

legal advice has confirmed the footy show rant was ridicule

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Hmmm... that's not what people are saying in this thread

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Well the posters in this thread are hardly likely to be accepting gay hate material as fact, are they? Duh!

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Again you miss the point.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

No I don't - you again miss the point - your own, in fact:



Would the "average" person out there know to differentiate?

No, they'd just suck it all in and repeat it as 'normal' - because it was on the telly.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Exactly my point. So let's censor heaps of existing humor out there. The "average" person needs to be protected from themselves.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I hardly think the average person, in a society already chronically influenced by homophobia and in which vigilance against such is already undermined, needs ENCOURAGING to laugh at gay hate material – which is what the Footy Show’s said sketch both permits and promotes.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I think it's fairly obvious that for 'average' folks, having their icons tell them that homosexuals are "faulty" and something to be "ashamed of" - as that sketch literally does - is to reinforce homophobic attitudes. If you were honest, zebra, you'd admit that you would also find it offensive if someone labeled you personally as such. For all the victims of homophobic violence, I am glad that there are people like Gary prepared to take a stand, on all our- including your - behalf. Thank you Garry.

And it is for that reason that I hope this community is at least willing to help him with his $20k+ legal costs.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I think it's fairly obvious that for 'average' folks, having their icons tell them that homosexuals are "faulty" and something to be "ashamed of" - as that sketch literally does - is to reinforce homophobic attitudes. If you were honest, zebra, you'd admit that you would also find it offensive if someone labeled you personally as such. For all the victims of homophobic violence, I am glad that there are people like Gary prepared to take a stand, on all our- including your - behalf. Thank you Garry.

And it is for that reason that I hope this community is at least willing to help him with his $20k+ legal costs.

I do think it's offensive. I don't think we need to censor it. It's already been widely condemned as stupid and unfunny in the media.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Yes. And if the average person is so helpless to differentiate between a comedy sketch and hate propaganda (which the footy show sketch was not) we really should start censoring lots of stuff.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009



And yet again, you remain ignorant and uninformed as to the definition of 'censorship’. Censorship is the prevention of any message. This is about redress of breach of vilification laws.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 1st Jun, 2009



You've come a long way from "gay comedy is not homophobia," "... everything is a target to comedy...." "someone better tell Matt Lucas and David Walliams humor isn't allowed"...etc. to "I do think it's offensive."

Hopefully the courts will be as easy to convince, they should certainly be more enlightened than you seem to be.

Perhaps you can also show where "it's already been widely condemned as stupid and unfunny in the media."

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

I don’t think it’s possible to dispute Garry Burns’ media statement that the sketch was “a very clear-cut case of anti-gay vilification” and that the humour “clearly portrays homosexual men as objects of ridicule.” If the jokes were made against Jews, Aboriginals or Asian people then they’d never make it on TV.

jordan

jordan said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Again Zebra, I would invite you to read up on a study called 'Semantics'. I really think it would help you understand, it would also help you formulate a rebuttal to me other than "I disagree".

:)

You keeping taking this argument out of context by trying to compare this to Will and Grace and Big Gay Al. They're not relevant because they're not the same context and they don't convey the same meaning - they're not the same social message. Again, read about Semantics.

Censorship is an interesting angle. But again, I would ask you to keep the context relevant in this debate, because it's all about context.

We have the (assumed right) to free speech. If you want to say something, you can, without fear that authorities will arrest you. Let's be clear, that is actually what free speech is by definition.

In television and in the media they have a responsibilities and standards governed by legislation because smart people have determined that the right to free speech, such as giving your opinion at a family BBQ that you think all Jews should have been gassed and saying it on national TV in prime time are two very different things. The context is important.

We, as a society have said that you cannot abuse the power to communicate. What makes this particularly pathetic, is that they don't come out and just say "We don't like gays" - Because they can't say this (due to those pesky laws preventing people in power from abusing it against weaker people in society) they disguise what is absolute pure homophobia as a joke so then if anyone says anything they can say "it was just a joke".

I would ask you this. If they had actually just said verbatim "Aboriginals were a mistake of evolution. They shouldn't have been born." Do you think thats ok? Anyone reasonable would say 'no'. So why is it different just because it's about gay people and is presented as a joke?

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

If anyone had said even as a joke: "Aboriginals were a mistake of evolution. They shouldn't have been born," that would not be considered ok nor would it go unchallenged.

jordan

jordan said on the 1st Jun, 2009



Of course. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is for them to say that because it was a 'joke' that the context and the meaning change.

Urban

Urban said on the 1st Jun, 2009

Yes. The context and meaning cannot possibly be argued by the perpetrators as changed due to its purported status as comedy. If such jokes were made against Jews, Aboriginals or Asian people then they’d never make it on TV.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 1st Jun, 2009


Would the "average" person out there know to differentiate? Or does the rank stereotyping just encourage hate?..... this is what people are saying about the footy show sketch.

Most all of the comments in forums in the mainstream media agree with the Footy Show that gays are inferior and 'faulty' and that they have the right to say so.


I'm not the one grandstanding and trying to take people to court over a comedy sketch.

...is a tad disingenuous, we need to take a stand to say, 'no, we are not faulty' and it is not alright to affirm to the many, many homophobes in our cultures that we are.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 1st Jun, 2009



You always exaggerate to strengthen your victim status.

By far the majority of comments I've read are bagging the footy show or highlighting that it was just a joke.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

You always exaggerate to strengthen your victim status.

By far the majority of comments I've read are bagging the footy show or highlighting that it was just a joke.

ZOMG., it's no wonder you're ashamed to show your face, you're SUCH a liar:

"I also see gays expecting every slight against them be treated as a national emergency and getting away with behaviour no straight person would, all the while abusing, vilifying, and lying about others. If the gay community wants to talk about hatred, intolerance, inequaility, and 'typing their bile' as 'voiced reason' put it, they should look at themselves first. "
"lighten up, get over it, get on with life."
"Mr Burns is obviously too sensitive and should get a life."
"We live in a Democracy, so why do gays think they have the right to FORCE people to be tolerant of the life style, some people agree with the gay life while others find it totally disgusting, what the gay community forget is that people are ALLOWED to think what they do is wrong."
"Some people should shut the hell up, and stop creating "target groups" and crying "poor us/me/them" every time something goes against them. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?????"
"when is all this political correctness going to stop. People need to lighten up.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
"some people will cry about anything to get their name into the papers. if a person is a gay or one of the many other minorities that we have in socitiety nowadays, expect to be mocked or ridiculed sometimes. just learn to get over it."
"But it is OK for Gays to dress up as Nuns and Priests during the Gay Mardi Gras and Sleaze Ball. Am I the only one to see a double standard here?"
"So it's okay for gays to go around calling everyone who doesn't think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread bigots by poking fun at gays should bring legal sanction?"
"Seems to me that you cant say or do anything these days with out some thin skinned righteous screaming racism or discrimination. I'm sick of it."
"Well it's been a while since gays have had something to whinge or protest about.... get a life!"

...and so on and - and then there's all the shit that was to disgusting to publish. At least we know where u get ur ideas from, zebby.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

ZOMG., it's no wonder you're ashamed to show your face, you're SUCH a liar:

"I also see gays expecting every slight against them be treated as a national emergency and getting away with behaviour no straight person would, all the while abusing, vilifying, and lying about others. If the gay community wants to talk about hatred, intolerance, inequaility, and 'typing their bile' as 'voiced reason' put it, they should look at themselves first. "
"lighten up, get over it, get on with life."
"Mr Burns is obviously too sensitive and should get a life."
"We live in a Democracy, so why do gays think they have the right to FORCE people to be tolerant of the life style, some people agree with the gay life while others find it totally disgusting, what the gay community forget is that people are ALLOWED to think what they do is wrong."
"Some people should shut the hell up, and stop creating "target groups" and crying "poor us/me/them" every time something goes against them. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?????"
"when is all this political correctness going to stop. People need to lighten up.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"
"some people will cry about anything to get their name into the papers. if a person is a gay or one of the many other minorities that we have in socitiety nowadays, expect to be mocked or ridiculed sometimes. just learn to get over it."
"But it is OK for Gays to dress up as Nuns and Priests during the Gay Mardi Gras and Sleaze Ball. Am I the only one to see a double standard here?"
"So it's okay for gays to go around calling everyone who doesn't think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread bigots by poking fun at gays should bring legal sanction?"
"Seems to me that you cant say or do anything these days with out some thin skinned righteous screaming racism or discrimination. I'm sick of it."
"Well it's been a while since gays have had something to whinge or protest about.... get a life!"

...and so on and - and then there's all the shit that was to disgusting to publish. At least we know where u get ur ideas from, zebby.



Those comments aren't hateful.



This simply isn't the case looking at the quotes you yourself have attempted to single out.

They simply aren't saying hateful things about being gay. That "gays are inferior and 'faulty' ".

You're exaggerating.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Jun, 2009



They simply aren't saying hateful things about being gay. That "gays are inferior and 'faulty' ".

You're exaggerating.

Comments online are moderated for legal reasons, publishing homophobic comment is illegal and will render the publisher liable to prosecution. You won't find overtly homophobic comment is permitted in those forums.

Which is rather the point, while you can't say, "gays are inferior and 'faulty' " you can illustrate that same point, in a piece of mini-theatre such as the sketch in question. And in the comments above which suggest that's it's OK to say "gays are inferior and 'faulty' ".

It's not OK.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Jun, 2009



You're the paranoid who is pushing that whole point.

Those people are more on about freedom of speech, and the fact it was a (poor) JOKE.

Paranoid delusions.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

zebra: How would you feel if Gary actually won this particular case?
Would you be happy for him?

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

zebra: How would you feel if Gary actually won this particular case?
Would you be happy for him?

Yeah I would. But would worry about how else this form of censorship could get misused, more than anything else.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 2nd Jun, 2009



Redressing homosexual vilification isn't censorship, though.
It's about righting an injustice.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Jun, 2009


So you think Garry is right, but you also think "You're the paranoid who is pushing that whole point.

Those people are more on about freedom of speech, and the fact it was a (poor) JOKE.

Paranoid delusions."?

In Asherbella-speak, I believe that is known as 'incongruent sending." Make up your mind. If you're just arguing for perversity's sake, stop wasting everyone's time.

As has been explained to you many, many times, "freedom of speech" comes with certain responsibilities, including the obligation not to vilify. Homosexuals are not "faulty."

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 2nd Jun, 2009



Completely incorrect. Said I'd be happy for him. Am not a psycho hateful person who doesn't see both sides. I understand there is a spectrum of opinions.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

Cripes. Homophobia is hate by another name. We are all equal and deserving of respect. Simple.

jordan

jordan said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

Hey,

There is a story about a kid in the US who killed himself because of homophobic bullying.

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=8539

Do you think a 'joke' on TV suggesting that gay people are faulty contributes to this? Or discourages it?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 2nd Jun, 2009

And under new laws proposed in Victoria targetting homohobic bullying in schools, "if a school staff member ‘turns a blind eye’, they may be held liable for assisting discrimination."
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/4090/Time-To-Target-School-Bullying-.htm

I wonder if the same maxim can be applied to those who ‘turn a blind eye’ to broadcasts that label us faulty and something to be ashamed of?

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Hey Zebra-lets meet for cafe

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Don’t quote yourself out of context, Zebra, you agreed that you’d be happy for Garry if he won this case
Then when yet another poster pointed out that this is not censorship, you again ignore the point.

So again, censorship is the prevention of any message, this is redress of one.

We have vilification laws precisely BECAUSE we don’t have censorship – anti-vilification action allows inappropriate, offensive and dangerous messages which are allowed to be expressed, to be redressed.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

The phenomenon of the self-loathing, homophobic gay man is a fascinating one. But dare I say that functionally, it may be a little 'faulty'?

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



I can be happy for someone even if I don't agree with them.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



That's entirely in your imagination.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



To be fair to the footy show, it's on at 9:30 and isn't aimed at 11 year old children.

Not that that ever stopped kids from watching what they wanted. And I'd agree these people are role models for kids.

But should we also ban certain skits from South Park? Horror movies? Bad language?

Ashberalla 's point was that the average viewer could not differentiate a joke from propaganda inciting hate against gay people. I think that's entirely overboard. But if it's true we'd need to censor lots of things.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

I wonder if the anonymous zebra would see the fairness in stereotyping aboriginals as alcoholic n*****s, or women objectified as domestics and meat, the disabled as 'veges' and 'cripples' who should have been terminated in the womb, etc...as well as gay men being labelled faulty, shameful jokes. I wonder if the zebra is aware that we are also Olympic champions, High VCourt judges, Federal MP's and a thousand other things that make all glbqti far from 'faulty' but rather, valued members of Australian society.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



You go on about anonanimity, but maybe you should start with your good friend Urban.

And yes, all those stereotypes get well covered in comedy.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

You go on about anonanimity, but maybe you should start with your good friend Urban.

And yes, all those stereotypes get well covered in comedy.


"good friend"? LOl, you have a very loose definition of friendships. However the need for those who are critical of acon to remain anonymous is not difficult to work out. But please, don't put the acon cheer squad CD on again.

...and you're wrong about mysogeny/gynophobia, racism etc., in the media. Homophobia is one of the last of the bigotries to be confronted in our culture...and that's just what Garry is doing.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009


But should we also ban certain skits from South Park? Horror movies? Bad language?

This is not about ‘banning’ anything in particular, just about exercising the appropriate vilification laws that protect you and I against homophobic material that has already gone to air in violation of anti-vilification legislation from being considered ‘acceptable'. However, any gay man who feels that homophobia is acceptable and should be allowed to go to air unchallenged is sorely confused - or caught up in an undisclosed agenda.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Which would mean we'd have to consider banning certain shows that present homosexuality as something loathsome, even if in jest, because there are people in our community who aren't able to understand comedy and are easily incited into hate.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Not at all, just that certain sensitive content has been recongnised by legal justice to be offensive- personally, I hope the case wins and strengthens precedent, yes. If you think it's amusing that teenage boys commit suicide over this material then you are one sick puppy.

any gay man who feels that homophobia is acceptable and should be allowed to go to air unchallenged is sorely confused - or caught up in an undisclosed agenda. As for your jibes to Shaynesydney about my anonymity in criticising your bumchums at ‘that’ org, I must point that you have never stepped out of your own anonymity in fighting its battles on here. So I don't believe you have a point - other than to admit, apparently, that The Footy Show is correct about your sexuality.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Name ONE example. It's illegal. To quote Rodney Croome:
“It’s very important to stand up to it, to ultimately stop vilification, which begets violence, ridicule and youth suicide.”

“Football players and commentators are demi-gods in Australian society, so when they demean gay people it can have a devastating effect, not only increasing the possibility of suicide among young and isolated LGBT people but also gay hate crime against us all.”

“People who think stereotypes, prejudice and cruelty are funny aren’t comedians, they’re bullies,”

"Homophobia remains this country's last acceptable prejudice. ..."

To quote Ian Roberts:

“It’s about time someone did this,” and People like the Johns brothers need to be held accountable for their actions and their effect on others.”

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Yeah footballers are demi gods in some circles.

In other circles South Park is watched religiously by young kids.

Big Gay Al, if you don't understand the humor, is a nasty stereotypical character who creates nothing but hate.

So censor that shit?

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

You STILL haven't checked the dictionary for 'censor'. Get your facts right before making even more of a fool 0f yourself. Nobody said anything should be ‘censored’, just that certain gay hate perpetuating material (once aired) should be prosecutable, so as to make a point and discourage future offences. If future serial offenders want to bang their own heads against the wall, all the more opportunity to show the public how WRONG it is whenever they offend and pay the price. In this case, it is worthy of justified penalty.

My own take on this is that you have an ongoing gripe against comments criticising your fave org not being ‘censored’ and that this is what your hangup is. I see that on the other forum about NMG you are still protecting the league of orgs in siding with that org (NMG, bedmate of ACON) and against the majority grass roots opinion. In fact on every single forum that may consider an org could have acted in favour of its constituents and didn’t, you step in on the defensive and argue against the logical majority. Typical ‘org asskisser’ mentality – and the ‘orgs' are those carrying the resources to address these kinds of issues but use those resources instead on their own perks. Do you honestly imagine your flashingly conspicuous ‘anti-community/pro-org’ stance hasn’t been obvious to all on here for aeons now?

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Getting back to reality, zebra, have you ever considered the effect that demeaning gay people can have on the young or isolated GLBQT, or those struggling with their sexuality at any age? Or the effect you might have on some such person reading your comments that's it's OK to vilify them as faulty and shameful, therefore it must be true?

There's a reason that gay youth suicide is 6 times that of hetero's. It's because they are conditioned by this culture, and those who condone it, to believe they are faulty, etc.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



You still don't understand you're setting the precedent for censorship.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Wrong - setting the precedent for more considerate (and legally aligned) depictive treatment of vulnerable minority groups

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



I'm not entirely wrong.

But oh well. If you dudes don't understand the other sides of the issue then I doubt you'll be able to follow this through successfully anyway.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

You are entirely wrong in arguing that this amounts to censorship.

The only way anyone might be unable to follow this through successfully anyway is if the resources are not made available to pay legal costs. (Now when NMG needed $50,000 for a fancy dress parade and a certain overly-funded org's CEO was being offered NMG's head honcho job in return for that $50,000....)

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



In my opinion, it is.



Please don't tell me you're talking about ACON again.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Whether this is censorship is not a matter of opinion – it is absolutely not censorship by any standards whatsoever, regardless of anyone's opinion. Censorship is a word with a formal definition – the legal redress of legally offensive material does not fit the definition of 'censorship'. Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Let me guess... like StarObserver filtering ACON content?



Yes but you can set the precedent for future censorship. You're ignoring that fact, it has been stated a few times.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

No you are ignoring the fact: You cannot suppress what has already been said. To say that in your opinion this is censorship is to say that in your opinion the dictionary is wrong. Of course, if you think that anyone can rewrite the English language in terms of their personal opinion...

This does not set a precedent for censorship, it follows a precedent for finding homophobic material unacceptable and affirms the precedent by proper use of anti-vilification law - AFTER THE FACT.


Yes, that is the suppression of speech. (You mentioned the unmentionable name, not me.)

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Yeah OK get over that for one second. This action would set future precedence for censorship, even if not censorship itself.



Yeah that's opinion and we differ there.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

This does not set a precedent for censorship, it follows a precedent for finding homophobic material unacceptable and affirms the precedent by proper use of anti-vilification law - AFTER THE FACT.


Yes, that is the suppression of speech. (You mentioned the unmentionable name, not me.)

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



Ugh. That depends entirely on whether you thought that comedy sketch was just unfunny or gay hate propaganda.

You may just have to accept that some people wont agree with you saying that it was deliberately serious hate, rather than an unfunny joke.

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Ugh. That depends entirely on whether you thought that comedy sketch was just unfunny or gay hate propaganda.

You may just have to accept that some people wont agree with you saying that it was deliberately serious hate, rather than an unfunny joke.

Regardless of whether you think this was just unfunny or gay hate propaganda, taking The Footy Show to trail under anti-vilification legislation IS NOT CENSORSHIP – and that is what you need to ‘just accept’.

Censorship is a word with a formal definition – the legal redress of legally offensive material does not fit the definition of 'censorship'. To say that in your opinion this is censorship is to say that in your opinion the dictionary is wrong. Of course, if you think that anyone can rewrite the English language in terms of their personal opinion...

Yeah OK get over that for one second. This action would set future precedence for censorship, even if not censorship itself.



Yeah that's opinion and we differ there.

No, it does not even set a precedent for future censorship - it sets a precedent for demonstrating why anti-vilification laws exist.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



If that comedy sketch is classed as vilification then it will open a can of worms which may result in censoring crass black humor in general.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

Should we start the censoring closer to home and ban the jokes based on race, sexuality, gender, etc.

Urban can decide what is offensive and what isn't, I suppose

Clean up our own back door?

Urban

Urban said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



There are no anti-vilification laws against mere ‘black humour’. Anti-vilification laws exist for just reasons and only come into effect after the fact of a breach of such laws – this may or may not help curb future homophobic material that calls you ‘faulty’ because of your sexuality (I hope so) but is not bound to do so – more likely people will think more carefully about what is funny and what might taunt young gay boys to suicide.

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/3882/11-Boy-Commits-Suicide-After-Homophobic-Bullying.htm



There's a difference between 'jokes based on race, sexuality, gender, etc' and cruelly ridiculing gay youths by depicting them as 'faulty' and unacceptable to parents. If The Footy Show had created a gender-reversed version of that skit using lesbian children and having parents wanting to ‘refund’ them because they were mockingly said to be, for example “unrootable ugly ungame Sheilas useless for the cheerleader squad” you can be sure the lesbian-feminist power network would be out in full anti-vilification force (complete with taxpayer funded thousands to foot the legal bill).

However, anti-vilification does not amount to censorship - censorship prevents speech in the first place, anti-vilification redresses it (after the fact) when it has been clearly harmful. Antivilifcation, hopefully, exists to balance freeedom of speech.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

So, zebra and The Footy Show don't know the difference between homosexual vilification and satirical humour. Well, The Footy Show is about to learn and I doubt they will ever make that mistake again. I'm afraid I must confess I don't hold such high hopes for the enlightenment of zebra. :(

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



They've already bowed to pressure... http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=9614

Like I was saying, there was already public outcry. Things weren't as bad as you made them out to be. The public didn't hate us as much as you'd like them to.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

LOL, zebra, you're such a nobhead, you really have no idea what is going on. I get a dozen emails a day from Garry Burns and I can tell you that Nine is desperately backpedalling on this one.

"Things weren't as bad as you made them out to be."? That would explain why Nine is shitting it's pants and the AFL are trying to put as much distance as they can between them and your boofhead heroes.

I can only wholeheartedly endorse what Urban has said on that other forum:

"Sounds to me like someone has lodged a complaint about the AFL's Footy Show chums to the Anti-Discrimination Board and the old boys act is either closing ranks in preparation for a wide gesture of defence - or the AFL is distancing itself from the Footy Show in advance of the big chop. Whatever the strategy, the Footy Show homophobia horse has already bolted. Maybe if the AFL is considering this now, then we as a community can be thankful to Garry Burns for drawing the necessary attention to the issue and triggering this sensible decision - I just hope Burns is not left to find the $20,000 legal fees himself on all on our behalf, when this is all settled."

Thank Christ there are people like Garry Burns around to defend our rights, rather than ignorant wankers like you.

Now, all that remains is to get a little dosh together from the community so that Garry, and others to come, can fight for your rights. This should be interesting.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 3rd Jun, 2009



The personal insults don't make you right about everything.

The Footy Show and NRL are in damage control in general.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 3rd Jun, 2009

http://shaynechesterstudios.webs.com/warchest.JPG

garry@bigpond.net.au

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 4th Jun, 2009

couldn't someone have come up with a less tacky design?

Urban

Urban said on the 4th Jun, 2009

Funny how Zebra’s comments on this poster echo ACON's disapproval of the last grass roots poster by the same artist if I'm correct (re the community vigil). Now let’s wait for ACON to hijack the anti-homophobia community war chest idea and take the cake for having dreamt up the idea – then watch them blow it all on overseas hols and crates of plonk.

Urban

Urban said on the 4th Jun, 2009

Well if you will insist on predictably whistling to their crumby tune time after time after time on here with every other issue raised, you can hardly blame people for pulling you up on it – you kicked it off (this time and last on here) only difference was I actually said the word. I’m not so slimy as you, I call a spade a spade.

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 4th Jun, 2009

Yep, thanks for calling me slimy.

But its you and shayne who relate everything back to conspiracy theories.

Urban

Urban said on the 4th Jun, 2009

But it's your camp who make a habit of bitching out grass roots poster initiatives when you aren't raking in any kudos.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 4th Jun, 2009



LOL, everyone's an art critic. Apart from sitting behind your anonymity sniping and bitching like an old Nanna, what else do you do with your life, zebra? When is the last time you showed some balls, took a stand or did something for anyone else? I mean, is that really the best you can do with your life?

DanM82

DanM82 said on the 5th Jun, 2009

The man is a professional whinger. To be honest, I found the clip amusing. If we can't laugh, why are we here. Let's pack up and go home. Will Burns just shut the fuck up for once. It's not all an insult to GLBTI people, it's a joke for crying out loud.

Urban

Urban said on the 5th Jun, 2009



Now there’s gratitude. If it hadn’t been for ‘professional whingers’ like him, YOU wouldn’t even be legal today. I take it you’ll never need to call upon the proposed community war chest, and I hope that if you ever do, it slaps you right back in the face as you have Garry Burns’ efforts to guard your rights against being vilified. Suggest you go back to school and learn a bit of history - oh, and if you have a little gay brother who ever suicides after gay taunts like The Footy Show's - tough titty, cry buckets - although it sounds like you wouldn't.

shaynesydney

shaynesydney said on the 5th Jun, 2009




Geez, have you always been such a ...

http://fs9.dudesnude.com/pic/postpic/b1985111.jpg

(Hey, no offence, it's a joke for crying out loud. If we can't laugh, why are we here. Let's pack up and go home. I'll get your coat.)

p.s. it's not a joke, it's scapegoating a minority. The theory goers like this: in scapegoating strangers, feelings of guilt, aggression, blame and suffering are transferred to another who serves as a target, usually a minority group as they are inherently less able to defend themselves. The target experiences exclusion, ostracism or even expulsion. The scapegoaters are insecure people driven to raise their own status by lowering the status of their target. It is a hostile social - psychological discrediting routine, the target is derided and receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism. The target might be gays, in the case of Kennett or the Footy Show, or Garry Burns, in the case all those "who is this 'self appointed' gay activist ...etc" queens and the SSO crew. The next time a gay man is bashed, or murdered, let's ask where the assailant got the idea that gays are not fit human beings.

And I think that should just about have exhausted your concentration span, thanks for your time.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 5th Jun, 2009

Dan m8 don"t pack up just stay in Melbourne.

Gay Activist

Gay Activist said on the 6th Jun, 2009

urban can u email me please,got news.

Bren

Bren said on the 8th Jun, 2009



Yep. But the NSW ADT will make a judgement as to whether an "ordinary reasonable person" would see the broadcast as inciting "hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule" of gays as a group.

Fortunately Collier v Sunol, Burns v Laws, etc, have set precedents on this. I'm no lawyer but from reading those cases, reading the Anti-Discrimination Act, and viewing the material on which Gary's complaint is based, it looks to me like Nine and The Footy Show have a clear case to answer.

Footy players can think whatever they like about gays. And they can say whatever they like in private. But when they are on air, on national telly, they have no right to vilify and the broadcaster has no right to allow them to do so. Alas, that has happened. Those involved should be held accountable. As Urban rightly argues, that is not censorship, it is a remedy for an unlawful act.

Zebra-stripes, it strikes me as passing strange that you are now worried about censorship, having argued on here so doggedly for some way of censoring artist Bill Henson last year.. :eek:

zebra-stripes

zebra-stripes said on the 8th Jun, 2009



Yeah I was discussing it. Was interested to know where the line was, but that doesn't mean I was strongly for censorship, but I argued the case for it. Marly was triumphant when the ruling came out that the child images could be retained, but sealed in brown paper bad. I thought that was a weak ruling that sent mixed messages.

Asherbella

Asherbella said on the 9th Jun, 2009

http://shaynechesterstudios.webs.com/warchest.JPG

garry@bigpond.net.au

Very direct, honest & positive message; correcting perceptions & addressing homophobia isn't a 'vengeful' thing to do - it's about redressing the injustice of the homophobic fear of 'the dislike of the unlike' & owning your voice so that narrow-minded people can reflect upon our insight into the very nature of homosexuality. Being gay is not a recreational lifestyle choice, it isn't a character flaw, it isn't a moral blight against one's name & it certainly isn't an internal, social or psychological 'fault'.

There are 131 more comments. View them all