Tony Abbott "Threatened" ByGays

www.samesame.com.au
  • 127
  • 10
  • 14143

Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has revealed that he feels “threatened” by homosexuality in an interview with current affairs program 60 Minutes.

During the story, which aired last night, journalist Liz Hayes tried to find out how Abbott’s conservative Catholic views affect his politics.

Of abortion, he said that he believed it should be safe, legal and rare. “And I underline ‘rare’,” he added. Abbott is in favour of IVF because it is about “creating life”, and he is somewhat open to the idea of the death penalty.

When Hayes asked, “Homosexuality? How do you feel about that?” he responded with, “I’d probably say I feel a bit threatened… as so many people.” When pressed, he elaborated, saying, “Again, Liz, look, it’s a fact of life and I try to treat people as people and not put them in pigeonholes.”

It’s a concerning opinion, given that Abbott could end up being the next Prime Minister of Australia.

Corey Irlam, spokesperson for Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE) will today write to Abbott, inviting him to meet with ordinary gays and lesbian people to help overcome his self-confessed sense of “threat” about homosexuality.

“We hope Mr Abbott will take up our invitation so he can overcome feeling threatened by homosexuality”, Mr Irlam said in a statement.

“Mr Abbott can pick any place he feels safe and we’ll invite ordinary members of the gay and lesbian community to come and talk with him to show him he has nothing to fear from us.”

Mr Irlam said statements like those of Mr Abbott highlight why Australia needs a national law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity.

“Unfortunately there are still some Australians who share Mr Abbott’s sense of threat, and who, in some cases, treat LGBTI Australians unfairly. The Opposition leader can show leadership on this issue by publicly committing the Coalition to support federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

During an appearance on ABC Television on Monday night, Abbott elaborated on his homophobic views, saying, “There is no doubt that challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things.”

The Federal Parliament has discussed the issue of legislation to protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity on and off since 1997. Equivalent protections exist in all states and territories but the federal human rights framework has yet to include it.

Introduction of such legislative protections were included in recommendations from the National Human Rights Consultation report on same-sex entitlements released in 2009.

Social

  • Quentin W
  • weinstein
  • thygir
  • Hessy
  • akkaz
  • brodes13
  • Matt Akersten
  • hazyinseptember
  • Travis de Jonk
  • Eltharion

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
15178
coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



So did the Liberal party. Between 1996 and 2007, during John Howard's term as Prime Minister, many attempts were made to reduce recognition of same-sex couples in federal legislation, as well as to thwart attempts by individual states to recognise unions of same-sex couples. Since the beginning of his term as Prime Minister, Howard has made his position clear on the gay rights issue. In January 1997, Howard refused to offer a message of support to Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras and said on the TV program A Current Affair that he would be "disappointed" if one of his children were to tell him they were gay or lesbian. In August 2001 when asked in a Triple J (Australian radio station) interview where he placed himself on a scale of acceptance of homosexuality, one end being total acceptance and the other total rejection, Howard replied, "Oh I'd place myself somewhere in the middle. I certainly don't think you should give the same status to homosexual liaisons as you give to marriage, I don't." In July 1996 the Howard Government reduced the number of interdependency visas, making migration for same sex couples more difficult. The UN Human Rights Commission declared Australia’s Federal Government in violation of equality and privacy rights under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights in September 2003 after denying a man a de facto spouse veteran’s pension based on his 38 year same sex relationship. The request from the UN that Australia take steps to treat same sex couples equally was ignored. When directly questioned, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said that the government is not bound by the ruling. In March 2004, Howard condemned Australia's first laws which would allow gay couples to adopt children in the ACT as part of a new ACT Bill of Rights. Howard said, "I think the idea of the ACT having a bill of rights is ridiculous. I'm against gay adoption, just as I'm against gay marriage." The commonwealth, however, did not overturn the legislation. On May 27, 2004, approximately two months after the UK proposed its Civil Partnership Act 2004, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill to prevent any possible court rulings allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. In August 2004, same-sex marriage was officially prohibited when the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act were amended in order to define marriage as a "union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". Amendments were also made to prevent the recognition in Australia of marriages conducted in other countries between a man and another man or a woman and another woman. In March 2006, after the ACT government announced plans to create civil unions within the territory, the federal government vowed to block it. Following the public outcry over Howard's move to kill the ACT bill, in April the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) began a six month inquiry to hear from Australians about the federal government's treatment of gays. The Howard Government banned its departments from making submissions to the inquiry into financial discrimination experienced by same-sex couples. In June, the ACT's civil union legislation was passed then disallowed by the Governor General. A second attempt to offer civil unions for same-sex couples in 2007 was again disallowed. The Governor General only disallowed the ACT legislation after being advised by the Executive Cabinet, although under the Constitution, the Governor Genral was not obliged to follow the advice of the Executive Cabinet. Plans were also made to introduce a federal bill preventing same-sex couples from adopting, but the idea was dropped after the 2007 elections.

jackie87

jackie87 said on the 9th Mar, 2010



Recently saw her at a community meeting in Redfern (which is in her electorate), That hair doesn't even move, she had 10 layers of foundation on. She come with a pre prepared answer to everything and pretends to be good at listening then answering the rest of your question with something completely irrelevant to what I had asked. Never heard so much pollie speak mumbo jumbo in all my life, Rees was right, the woman is a puppet...or a robot. Everything had been cut and dried by the end of the meeting where it had already been obviou sthe project we had wanted her to allocate government money, we weren't gonna get a penny but she still dsay yes or no.

The woman was nowhere to be seen during Mardi Gras either, the most I've ever seen her do is attend Fair Day once, dragged along by a few other state Labor MPs and her electorate has to be one of the gayest in all of the country. It was fine for her to be World Youth Day spokeswoman so the government could raise her profile and make people aware of her good looks but the woman is no different to all the spin dominated and no substance Carr/Iemma/Rees lot we have had over the last 15 or so years.

I think if the Libs get in and at least get started on building the missing transport links we had been promised and revoked so many times over the history of this government they might at least be seen like they have got their ass into gear. But judging from typical Liberal governments who sit back and watch the money come in and do nothing. They're both rubbish, the only 2 libs who have any profile are Barry O'Farrell who always gets his 2 cents worth and that screeching Transport spokeswoman Gladys Whatshername. Guess who I'm going to be voting for? :greens:

pioneer_to_the_falls

pioneer_to_the_falls said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Tuesday 9 March 2010
Mr Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

RE: Invitation to meet LGBTI community / Federal anti-discrimination laws

Dear Mr Abbott

I write today on behalf of the Australian Coalition for Equality in regards to your recent comments on 60 Minutes and Lateline regarding your feelings towards homosexuality.

We are deeply concerned that the alternative Prime Minister of Australia says he feels threatened by and that this feeling is shared by "so many people". Further, we are dismayed that when provided an opportunity to clarify your remarks, your explanation was to suggest that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people Australians challenge "orthodox notions of the right order of things".

In response to your specific statements, we would like to take the opportunity to refer you to research conducted by Roy Morgan's National Consumer Poll that shows in 2008 only 29% of Australians believe "homosexuality is immoral". This is hardly a basis for your statement that "so many people" feel threatened, as stated on the 60 Minutes program. Indeed Roy Morgan CEO Michele Levine was quoted in September 2009 as saying "What we've noticed over the last 10 years is that Australians are becoming more open-minded in their views about a lot of things, including homosexuality."

We note your further statements that you "try to treat people as people and not put them in Pigeonholes". While this is an admiral quality to possess, we are deeply concerned that your statements appear to imply that the majority of LGBTI Australians are somehow inferior or abnormal as they challenge the "orthodox notions of the right order of things", yet may be removed from this classification in some individual cases, based on treating the person as you find them.

In addition to being inconsistent with the view of a majority of Australians, we are deeply concerned that your comments have the potential to inflict unintended harm to a minority group within Australia.

We note that in the same Lateline interview in relation to comments on your new parental leave policy you stated "But I think that where circumstances change and your understanding deepens, the mature thing to do is to adjust your position, and that's what I've done". You noted that part of the basis of your change in parental leave policy was from discussions with "a number of people who I think are insightful in this area".

We thus write to you today to invite you to meet with members of the LGBTI community and discuss with them your views on the issues of homosexuality and more broadly bisexuality and sex and gender diversity. We hope that such a meeting could be conducted in the spirit of deeper understanding of each others perspectives. We would be prepared to work around your schedule to convened this meeting at a time and location of your choice, to ensure that you feel safe and unthreatened in the environment chosen.

We draw your attention to the 2005 paper Mapping Homophobia in Australia where the researchers comment:

"While not everyone who is homophobic engages in discriminatory behaviour towards gay men and lesbians they are more likely to contribute to a general attitude of intolerance. Thus derogatory and insulting remarks about gay men and lesbians by, for example, prominent radio personalities reinforce intolerance and appear to sanction discriminatory behaviour."

We believe that your recent comments have the potential to be interpreted by some within Australia as sanctioning discriminatory behaviour and while we do not believe your views have resulted in such discrimination occur, unfortunately there are still some Australians who share your sense of threat, and who, in some cases, treat LGBTI Australians unfairly.

In recent years the Opposition has shown bi-partisan approach to the removal of discrimination faced by same-sex couples. Indeed we note that the authoritative report that led to these historic reforms, Same Sex: Same Entitlements by the Australian Human Rights Commission was commissioned by the Howard Government. We again note our congratulations and thanks for the Oppositions enlightened approach to such matters.

Given that your comments were made in your capacity as the leader of the opposition we are alarmed that such comments may signal the end of this bi-partisan approach to key policy issues involving sexuality, sex and gender diversity. As such we respectfully request an opportunity for the Australian Coalition for Equality to engage in further dialogue with you about key policy issues remaining for the LGBTI community. There are a range of policy issues, but perhaps one of the key legislative issues is that of Federal anti-discrimination laws.

As you may be aware the Australian Parliament has discussed the issue of Federal Anti- Discrimination legislation since 1995, including a committee inquiry into a private members bill tabled in 1997. The recent National Human Rights Consultation report recommended that priority be given to anti-discrimination legislation and noted in its discussion that the absence of federal antidiscrimination legislation was of particular concern.

Federal laws prohibit discrimination on a more limited range of grounds than the state laws. There was a particular concern that discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people is not prohibited at the federal level.

Indeed the Australian Liberal Party national platform supports creating opportunities for Australians by committing itself to "oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria". In previous versions of the platform, where specific criteria were specifically included I understand the criteria of sexuality was mentioned.

In June 2009 the Australian Coalition for Equality commissioned national research as part of the Galaxy omnibus on the issue of Australian support for the introduction of federal antidiscrimination legislation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The research found that 85% of Australians support such legislation being introduced, including 83% of coalition voters.

Mr Abbott, we hope this unfortunate recent incident provides an opportunity for meaningful and productive dialogue with yourself (and your office) on issues facing the LGBTI community. I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the matters raised in this letter and specifically your response to below key questions:

1) Will you meet with members of Australia's LGBTI community and their families to discuss your fears and feelings? We would welcome the opportunity to provide our community with an opportunity to convince you that we do not challenge orthodox notions of the right order of things or are a community that people should feel threatened by?

2) Will you publicly commit the Opposition to supporting the introduction of federal anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that all members of the LGBTI community do not face unwarranted discrimination ?

Please feel free for yourself or a member of your office to contact me on the details listed below should require anything further

Yours sincerely
Corey Irlam

Australian Coalition for Equality

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2841008.htm

gnosis

gnosis said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Recently saw her at a community meeting in Redfern (which is in her electorate), That hair doesn't even move, she had 10 layers of foundation on. She come with a pre prepared answer to everything and pretends to be good at listening then answering the rest of your question with something completely irrelevant to what I had asked. Never heard so much pollie speak mumbo jumbo in all my life, Rees was right, the woman is a puppet...or a robot. Everything had been cut and dried by the end of the meeting where it had already been obviou sthe project we had wanted her to allocate government money, we weren't gonna get a penny but she still dsay yes or no.

The woman was nowhere to be seen during Mardi Gras either, the most I've ever seen her do is attend Fair Day once, dragged along by a few other state Labor MPs and her electorate has to be one of the gayest in all of the country. It was fine for her to be World Youth Day spokeswoman so the government could raise her profile and make people aware of her good looks but the woman is no different to all the spin dominated and no substance Carr/Iemma/Rees lot we have had over the last 15 or so years.

I think if the Libs get in and at least get started on building the missing transport links we had been promised and revoked so many times over the history of this government they might at least be seen like they have got their ass into gear. But judging from typical Liberal governments who sit back and watch the money come in and do nothing. They're both rubbish, the only 2 libs who have any profile are Barry O'Farrell who always gets his 2 cents worth and that screeching Transport spokeswoman Gladys Whatshername. Guess who I'm going to be voting for? :greens:

Yeah her no-show at all Mardi Gras-related events was really noticable. She's always quick to jump on any sort of tourism event in NSW. But as the Minister for World Youth Day, so I guess her priorities are elsewhere.

She's my local member but I can't see her surviving the next election. The Greens would have a real shot here.

I didn't mind Carr/Iemma and Rees was doing okay until he was toppled by the right wing of his party.

musheh

musheh said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!

tricky28

tricky28 said on the 10th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!
This is not some random opinion plucked off the street - this is a person running for leader of this nation. A Rhodes scholar in fact. He knows very well he is making a moral judgment when he says he's "threatened" by homosexuals because it "challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things". To say that it challenges the orthodoxy is completely true - that is not the issue - but to be personally threatened by this sends a message (exemplified when holding high office) that there is something wrong with those people. It may be ambiguously stated, and purposefully of course - but anyone knowledgeable of Abbott's background can decipher the meaning.

I would not give a politician any slack when it comes to language and word play - they know exactly what they're doing. And straight talker Tony knows it is an a election year and this is the time to give out the subtle hints to bigots and racists that Liberal still is the party for them. They won't be giving the homos and refugees any free rides when they get in office.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 11th Mar, 2010

Whilst i'm not the biggest fan of Tony Abbott (or, more specifically, not a fan at all), I can't help but think people are (as well as the other few i've seen floating around regarding his 60 Minutes interview) taking unnecessary stabs at the guy. This is the first article i've seen which actually cites him saying he wants to treat people as people, so kudos to you for that. But why is it there is so much outrage about it? I mean, has every queer who’se heard about this only heard the “threatened” part, and gotten upset? I initially did too, until I actually viewed the televised footage myself and realised it wasn’t all that bad.
Of course he feels threatened by homos. Most people who aren't queer do feel threatened by us. I have friends who are fine with my homosexuality, who still feel a little uncomfortable when amongst a crowd of queers. But that uncomfortability doesnt reduce their capacity to rationalise and express their values of equality. Which is exactly as Abbott as done, yes, he's threatened, but he aims to treat us as people. So to the outraged people out there – Give him a break! This isn’t something he deserves to be attacked on. Just wait until he does something else ridiculously stupid and then take your blows at him.
Oh, and yes, we do challenge what is orthodox. Abbot is stating fact. Homosexuality is unorthodox! We are breaking traditional values by making ourselves public! Again, why the outrage? It's truth!

I guess its because consertives who support him, don't want him to state the obvious. I feel its partly because it makes it harder for them now to publicly state they support him after he made those comments. Its like with Pauline Hanson, nobody really wanted to say they supported her after her comments she made, however come election time she recieved thousands of votes. Consertives want to be able to say they support a party without feeling guilty, notice how it was mostly the consertive media who drumed up the most outrage EG channel nine and the Herald Sun newspaper.

ammonite

ammonite said on the 12th Mar, 2010

The G-d of the Torah (Christians call the Torah *Old Testament*) is without form & is infinite. The G-d of the Torah is not 'angry & jealous' - just ask Rabbi - a JEW who would know more about the Torah than a non-Jew.

http://www.aish.com/atr/

Ash I honestly really admire your faith in God.

As for me, while there is wonderful stuff in there, God scares the sh*t out of me.

I will try and explain why with a couple quotes from some books the Torah and the Bible share. (I know the translations and interpretations are always slightly different, and I can't read Hebrew.)

numbers 25
While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab. 2These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel. 4The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the Lord, in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”

6Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, 8he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel. 9Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. 10The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 11“Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites. 12Therefore say, ‘I hereby grant him my covenant of peace. 13It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.’” 14The name of the slain Israelite man, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, head of an ancestral house belonging to the Simeonites. 15The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur, who was the head of a clan, an ancestral house in Midian.


Leviticus 26

14But if you will not obey me, and do not observe all these commandments, 15if you spurn my statutes, and abhor my ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments, and you break my covenant, 16I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you; consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down by your enemies; your foes shall rule over you, and you shall flee though no one pursues you. 18And if in spite of this you will not obey me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins. 19I will break your proud glory, and I will make your sky like iron and your earth like copper. 20Your strength shall be spent to no purpose: your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit. 21If you continue hostile to me, and will not obey me, I will continue to plague you sevenfold for your sins. 22I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock; they shall make you few in number, and your roads shall be deserted. 23If in spite of these punishments you have not turned back to me, but continue hostile to me, 24then I too will continue hostile to you: I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins. 25I will bring the sword against you, executing vengeance for the covenant; and if you withdraw within your cities, I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into enemy hands. 26When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven, and they shall dole out your bread by weight; and though you eat, you shall not be satisfied.27But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, 28I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. 29You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you. 31I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. 32 I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste. 34Then the land shall enjoy its sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years. 35As long as it lies desolate, it shall have the rest it did not have on your sabbaths when you were living on it. 36And as for those of you who survive, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword, and they shall fall though no one pursues. 37They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though no one pursues; and you shall have no power to stand against your enemies. 38You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you. 39And those of you who survive shall languish in the land of your enemies because of their iniquities; also they shall languish because of the iniquities of their ancestors.

There are 26 more comments. View them all