That other controversial episode of QandA

That offensive QandA episode

I am a little late on this one; I missed QandA and had to watch it on iView. There is a huge hubbub about an offensive guest on QandA, with the PM tactlessly wanting ‘heads to roll’, for allowing a ‘terrorist’ on the show. 
I watched the latest episode entitled Between a Frock and a Hard Place and assumed that Fred Niles was the guest in question. 
I later found out the offensive  individual was a crowd member who asked a  question. 
I then assumed it must have been that homophobic mans question. 
I forwarded this to a friend to look over and they politely informed me that, i had the wrong episode. Which actually makes more sense, as i didn't think the LIb/Nats would ever stand up to the radical 'christian' right even if it meant a 'free attack' on the ABC.

I did a lot of research and spent a lot of time writing this so I’m still going to make it public (edited to make sense), Because there should be outrage over the things Fred Niles has said and me thinking there actually was, is kind of an amusing situation.

So let’s look at the views the guest expressed first.

• He proudly admitted to voting against the decriminalisation of homosexuality. He now claims to be against the ‘homosexual acts’ and bizarrely claims that doesn’t make him against homosexuals.
• I think he was saying he was against anal sex in particular; he equates anal sex between men with aids, and fails to address the fact straits have anal sex and can even get aids if they don’t have anal sex.
• Claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder, when it isn’t.
  
• Falsely claims that homosexuality is unnatural, when in fact there has not been any species of animal studied (that has male/female genders) that does not exhibit homosexuality.
• Claims homosexuality is a sin, it is not for me, my religion does not have sin.
• He seems to think that anti-bulling campaigns in school ‘promote homosexuality’, is he saying he thinks people can be easily tricked into believing they have same sex attraction? That’s what it sounds like, but that’s ludicrous, we are born with our sexuality, if a homosexual doesn’t act upon his natural feelings of homosexuality he is no less a homosexual. If you are able to feel loving attraction for both sexes then you are bisexual, not heterosexual. He seems very confused.
• He seems to think it has been ‘thousands of years’ since 2004 (its 2015 now). He incorrectly believes that every society and every religion was against gay couples, this is woefully incorrect. As an example christians marriage has actually involved marrying two men in the past and the Wiccan Goddess says “all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals”
  Also we are not talking about his interpretation of his religions version of marriage, we are talking about the legal / social institution.
• 
• He says equal rights are ‘a step to far’, he is wrong.
• He seems to think the right to discriminate against people based on their sexuality is more important than the right not to be discriminated against. He tries to claim Christianity is being persecuted against?
• He is against single parents and homosexual parents, despite the fact studies have shown children are better off with same-sex parents.

The Panel

The panel consisted of a wide range of people.

Professor Dennis Altman - Homosexual: Oppression & Liberation and many others. He came across as logical and sincere. 

Paul Capsis – Is a performing artist, I know him best from the movie Head On. He was sensible and caring.

Julie McCrossin – Is always loveable she is a actor, activist, reporter, and is charming as ever.

Julia Doulman – I admit I don’t know her, she was great on the show, and she is a transgender advocate against transphobia and discrimination.

Katherine Hudson – I am not sure I knew of her but she is the co-founder of Wear it Purple, which I was aware of, it’s a program well worth supporting, she was energetic and profound on the panel.

Fred Niles – The man that all the fuss is about, he is thought of as a narrow-minded bigot by most Australians.  He is the founder of the CDP (‘Christian’ Democratic Party) as you can see from reading above he is outspoken against homosexuality, or now it seems allowing homosexuals to express their love.

  Just a few other things Fred has said:

• When in reference to the Sydney siege were a gay man died trying to wrestle the gun away from a mad gunman. “The only man really there was the man with the gun.” (After much outrage, he later retracted that comment) And ‘that no hostages at Martin Place should receive bravery awards and their actions had potentially risked the lives of their fellow hostages.’
• In an act of religious bigotry he said he would use his political party to; "do what it can to stop pagan weddings and witchcraft or Wicca activities."

The questioners:

Can we all just take a moment to express our thanks at those brave LGBTI people and their supporters who went on national television with their stories and questions.

Two questioners really stuck out for me, one was a homophobic bigot that seemed to agree with Irrelevant Fred. 

The other was an adorable man of Turkish descent, he was charming. 

I don’t know how anyone could watch this and still be against equality.

As for Mr Fred;

Fred Niles confuses me, i don't understand what his motivations or justifications are, i can think of a few possibility's, but i am only guessing;

• If he is just a radical extremist, a bigoted homophobe then why is he given any airtime on the ABC? Am I actually in agreement with Abbot on something? No, I am not, well not really,  because while I disagree with Niles comments and many of those comments are simply incorrect, he has a right to say (at least some of) them. Though if he is intentionally misleading the public (and I believe he has a responsibility to be informed / accurate) or if he is found to be inciting hatred and discrimination (which he freely admits wanting to outlaw 'homosexual acts'), he should be held accountable by whatever laws are in place to do so. I think free speech should not include hate speech, discriminatory speech or false speech. 
• Is Niles simply ill informed, and too incompetent, stubborn or lazy to actually do any research which would enable him to do his better job as a politician, and not speak falsehoods against others? This brings up a lot of questions about some politicians misleading the public and not representing all Australians.
• Is he a deeply disturbed man, struggling with his inner demons and hiding behind hate speech? If so I truly hope he can find peace within himself and perhaps devote his energy’s to doing good in the world. 
• Is it simply that he finds man on man sex uncomfortable to think about? Could it be that simple? If so i have news for him, i don't like straight sex, so i choose not to think about it. Actually there is also a few things gay (and some straight) people do in sex that i don't like, i don't seek to criminalise it, i just choose not to participate in it.
  
  I don’t know, he is due to retire this year and I think that is probably for the best.

 Other opinions:

• I also feel the ‘heads should roll’ comment (made by Abbot, not Niles) was in extreme bad taste, when terrorists are actually beheading people!
•  I don't understand why, with so much evil in the world a person would choose an innocent minority like gay people as the target of their hatred. I just think if all this energy had been put into say, reducing homelessness, preventing youth suicide,animal rights, indigenous health, or helping victims of family violence, how much good Niles and his party could have achieved.
• I also don't think Niles was a very good pick for this panel, he obviously doesn't understand homosexuality, seems to not really get the separation of religion and government, and doesn't seem to have much knowledge on history, society or religions. It is kind of odd, he certainly wasn't a prepared guest and added nothing really useful to the panel, except i suppose to show how wrong, on so many things, gaysists can be. 
• As a religious person myself, i am offended by people using their god or goddess as an excuse to hate or discriminate against others. Dont get me wrong, you can choose to worship whoever you want, but its a choice not an excuse. If i am ever approached by a Deity and he/she informs me, something like "i don't like the vagina, i want you to try to outlaw vaginal sex" or "i think marriage should only be between people who use the same sided dominant hand, i want all other marriages banned!" or "i don't like that race, take away their rights!" I would politely thank the Deity for his/ her time and simply not associate with that God/ Goddess again. Because which Deity's i choose to follow is a choice and i make that choice based on what is right and good, harming none. This is different than if the Deity wanted me to not have vaginal sex, or marry an opposite handed person or not be a particular race (um maybe), because that would be my choice and i wouldn't be forcing my views or those of that God/Goddess onto others there is a difference.

As for the ABC, it is independent and should remain so. Funding removed from it, despite promises its funding wouldn't be cut, should be returned. If were going to look at media bias, there are many other places where pro-government bias is blatantly evident. Having said that i think that guests on panel shows should not be allowed to outright lie, if they a found to have done so then the lie and truth should be pointed out.