Comments on: If they could turn back time… http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/ "The thinking Laborite would as lief be found in bed with a cobra as in a committee room armed with 'arguments' from the Tory press." --- Truth, Perth, 19 June 1915. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:29:18 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Frank Calabrese http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-8098 Frank Calabrese Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:59:39 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-8098 Oh Dear, Colin has just made his first big stuff up - engaging ing in some good old poofter bashing http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,12057142%255E2761,00.html Barnett's gay gibe raises hackles By Amanda Banks and David King 26jan05 WEST Australian Opposition leader Colin Barnett has upset gay-rights groups with an "insensitive" remark about homosexuals in his first stumble of the state election. When a journalist offered the would-be premier hairspray at an outdoor campaign launch yesterday to prevent his hair from blowing in the wind, Mr Barnett replied: "I'm not after the gay vote." What a stupid moron. Keep it up Colin, the more you open your mouth, the better it is for The Government :-) Oh Dear, Colin has just made his first big stuff up – engaging ing in some good old poofter bashing

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,12057142%255E2761,00.html

Barnett’s gay gibe raises hackles
By Amanda Banks and David King
26jan05

WEST Australian Opposition leader Colin Barnett has upset gay-rights groups with an “insensitive” remark about homosexuals in his first stumble of the state election.

When a journalist offered the would-be premier hairspray at an outdoor campaign launch yesterday to prevent his hair from blowing in the wind, Mr Barnett replied: “I’m not after the gay vote.”

What a stupid moron.

Keep it up Colin, the more you open your mouth, the better it is for The Government :-)

]]> By: Mark http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6449 Mark Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:50:03 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6449 What a fucking retard. At least Labor has a better chance against him than anyone with half a brain. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> What a fucking retard. At least Labor has a better chance against him than anyone with half a brain.

]]> By: Antonio http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6447 Antonio Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:51:50 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6447 Yeah i'm a Liberal and even I think that Colin Barnett's proposed policy is dumb & illiberal. Perhaps he could take a leaf out of John Brogdan's book on the issue of discrimination on the basis of a characteristic (in this case - sexuality). I think you would find though that there would be a few noticeable members of the Coalition crossing the floor of the WA parliament if this proposal ever reached the floor. Antonio <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> Yeah i’m a Liberal and even I think that Colin Barnett’s proposed policy is dumb & illiberal. Perhaps he could take a leaf out of John Brogdan’s book on the issue of discrimination on the basis of a characteristic (in this case – sexuality).

I think you would find though that there would be a few noticeable members of the Coalition crossing the floor of the WA parliament if this proposal ever reached the floor.

Antonio

]]> By: vaara http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6441 vaara Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:41:10 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6441 A couple of years ago, there was a <a href="http://vaara.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_vaara_archive.html#89459070">case in Kansas</a> involving an 18-year-old boy who was caught having sex with a 14-year-old. Kansas, like many states, has a so-called "Romeo and Juliet" law under which the statutory-rape statutes are relaxed or waived in cases where both the "adult" participant (i.e. the one who is over 18) is not significantly older than the "minor" participant. But because both the participants in the Kansas case were male, the older one -- who was 18 -- got 17 years in jail, instead of the 15 months he would have received if the other one -- who was nearly 15 -- had been a girl. This in a country where Britney Spears has been wank fodder ever since she sprouted breasts. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> A couple of years ago, there was a case in Kansas involving an 18-year-old boy who was caught having sex with a 14-year-old.

Kansas, like many states, has a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law under which the statutory-rape statutes are relaxed or waived in cases where both the “adult” participant (i.e. the one who is over 18) is not significantly older than the “minor” participant.

But because both the participants in the Kansas case were male, the older one — who was 18 — got 17 years in jail, instead of the 15 months he would have received if the other one — who was nearly 15 — had been a girl.

This in a country where Britney Spears has been wank fodder ever since she sprouted breasts.

]]> By: ab http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6440 ab Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:11:07 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6440 All teenagers are a little challenged, actually thinking about it, things haven't really changed that much for me over the years. Do they have any clauses like that for confused people who pick innately dodgy partners??? Maybe I could get compo! Barnet is an anal retentive wally. In theory your argument is workable Rob, however the fact is, society doesn't protect young girls or young boys from anyone whether it is underage fornication or violence - kids and women were obviously considered an 'also ran' when they were designing all legislation to govern their activities with the only consideration being how they could get the law to work for the benefit of worthwhile blokey wage earners. Parliament has too many old men - it is not a sensible or equitable representation of the electorate. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> All teenagers are a little challenged, actually thinking about it, things haven’t really changed that much for me over the years.
Do they have any clauses like that for confused people who pick innately dodgy partners??? Maybe I could get compo!

Barnet is an anal retentive wally.

In theory your argument is workable Rob, however the fact is, society doesn’t protect young girls or young boys from anyone whether it is underage fornication or violence – kids and women were obviously considered an ‘also ran’ when they were designing all legislation to govern their activities with the only consideration being how they could get the law to work for the benefit of worthwhile blokey wage earners.

Parliament has too many old men – it is not a sensible or equitable representation of the electorate.

]]> By: Robert http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6433 Robert Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:59:23 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6433 Indeed, it's standard "I'm not racist, but..." rubbish. As I mentioned, Barnett probably disagrees, but he's got people to pander to. <em>The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be 'confused' before adulthood, wher[e]as a straight person cannot be...</em> Exactly, and that's where it becomes discriminatory. If I'm a 16yo male, I would be deemed capable of consenting to have sex with a 20yo woman but incapable of consenting to have sex with 20yo man. It's ridiculous. Essentially they're saying that a homosexual teenager is mentally retarded. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> Indeed, it’s standard “I’m not racist, but…” rubbish. As I mentioned, Barnett probably disagrees, but he’s got people to pander to.

The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be ‘confused’ before adulthood, wher[e]as a straight person cannot be…

Exactly, and that’s where it becomes discriminatory. If I’m a 16yo male, I would be deemed capable of consenting to have sex with a 20yo woman but incapable of consenting to have sex with 20yo man. It’s ridiculous.

Essentially they’re saying that a homosexual teenager is mentally retarded.

]]> By: Natasha http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6432 Natasha Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:42:08 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6432 The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be 'confused' before adulthood, wheras a straight person cannot be, and that they are more likely to be preyed upon by an older gay man than a young girl is likely to be preyed upon by an older heterosexual man. Unless Colin Barnett can provide the facts to prove this, it's a law based on nothing but bigoted stereotyping. It's not hard to wonder why he qualified it with 'I don't support any discrimination on the grounds of...'. Sheesh, how many times have we heard that line, followed by something blatantly discriminatory? <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be ‘confused’ before adulthood, wheras a straight person cannot be, and that they are more likely to be preyed upon by an older gay man than a young girl is likely to be preyed upon by an older heterosexual man.

Unless Colin Barnett can provide the facts to prove this, it’s a law based on nothing but bigoted stereotyping. It’s not hard to wonder why he qualified it with ‘I don’t support any discrimination on the grounds of…’. Sheesh, how many times have we heard that line, followed by something blatantly discriminatory?

]]> By: Robert http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6431 Robert Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:06:19 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6431 Oh, and when you say "we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men" --- how? If the girl is 16 or 17, then it's up to her who she sleeps with, whether he is 17, 20, 40 or 90. As it should be. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> Oh, and when you say “we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men” — how? If the girl is 16 or 17, then it’s up to her who she sleeps with, whether he is 17, 20, 40 or 90. As it should be.

]]> By: Robert http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6430 Robert Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:04:14 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6430 Actually, that's not the state of the law. If a 16yo has sex with a 15yo, it is statutory rape, just as it would be if a 30yo had sex with a 15yo. A person under the statutory age of consent is deemed to be incapable of forming consent to engage in sexual conduct. The exception is where the alleged rapist had a reasonable and sincere belief that the person was over the age of consent. For example, a man (however old) who meets a mature-looking 15yo girl in a bar would probably be found not guilty, as it is reasonable to assume that she is of legal age to be in the bar. However, Barnett is saying that 17yo boys should be protected from (even welcome) advances from men aged 18 or over. He does not beleive that similar protection should be afforded to young women aged 16 or 17. Why not? <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> Actually, that’s not the state of the law. If a 16yo has sex with a 15yo, it is statutory rape, just as it would be if a 30yo had sex with a 15yo. A person under the statutory age of consent is deemed to be incapable of forming consent to engage in sexual conduct.

The exception is where the alleged rapist had a reasonable and sincere belief that the person was over the age of consent. For example, a man (however old) who meets a mature-looking 15yo girl in a bar would probably be found not guilty, as it is reasonable to assume that she is of legal age to be in the bar.

However, Barnett is saying that 17yo boys should be protected from (even welcome) advances from men aged 18 or over. He does not beleive that similar protection should be afforded to young women aged 16 or 17. Why not?

]]> By: John http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/comment-page-1/#comment-6429 John Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:55:58 +0000 http://www.redrag.net/2004/12/07/if-they-could-turn-back-time/#comment-6429 Robert, I read and enjoy your blog daily, but sometimes you confuse me as to what exactly your point is. Age of consent/statutory rape laws vary from state to state, but as a general rule, we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men. Typically, it is counted as statutory rape if you have sex with someone who is both under the age of consent and more than two years younger than you. A little judicious googling reveals that in recent years, most states have settled on an equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse - WA used to have a 5-year difference with the age of consent for male-male intercourse being 21 as recently as 2002. So while Barnett is certainly indulging in "I'm not a bigot, but ..." talk, what is saying is hardly new and his notion of permitting consensual sex between partners both under the age of consent is not far removed from current practice... Bigoted? Yes. Ill-informed? Yes. Woolly? Very much so. Strange? Sadly, no. <!-- three strikes score: 0. --> Robert, I read and enjoy your blog daily, but sometimes you confuse me as to what exactly your point is. Age of consent/statutory rape laws vary from state to state, but as a general rule, we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men. Typically, it is counted as statutory rape if you have sex with someone who is both under the age of consent and more than two years younger than you. A little judicious googling reveals that in recent years, most states have settled on an equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse – WA used to have a 5-year difference with the age of consent for male-male intercourse being 21 as recently as 2002.

So while Barnett is certainly indulging in “I’m not a bigot, but …” talk, what is saying is hardly new and his notion of permitting consensual sex between partners both under the age of consent is not far removed from current practice… Bigoted? Yes. Ill-informed? Yes. Woolly? Very much so. Strange? Sadly, no.

]]>