Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[pErvinalia]

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

Was your banning reasonable?

[pErvinalia]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Not only that, these Private schools receive a bucket load of public funding.

[pErvinalia]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

Welcome to libertarianism...

[pErvinalia]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Why does "private" make discrimination okay?

Not so much "okay" as "their school, their rool", they have no obligations to take any students that does not fit their criteria, even if said criteria are lousy and silly...

After all, nobody says a thing if students get rejected or expelled from institutions for insufficient academic results, and teh ghey can not help themselves any better than the moronic or the darn lazy... so if the latter can be excluded, why not the former?

Because exclusion of the former is generally illegal (although it appears it isn't in NSW) but exclusion of the latter isn't.

[pErvinalia]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

[pErvinalia]

America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

It would be protected but what can they do with their "creationism"? Nothing. They're not going to invent new things or develop new life saving treatments.

Sez who? Do you have any idea how many medical researchers hold strong religious opinions and yet manage to still do science?

Fail. That's obviously not due to their creationist belief. It's due to their training in science.

But fine, I guess the best that one could hope for is that they see everyone else progressing while they're still praying to their imaginary friend and decide to join in.

Funnily enough your way might actually work in this country because the creationists are so few and scattered they would not be able to pool the resources to create private schools.

I wouldn't see much hope for some of the Southern States in America if schools went private, though.

Right. Let people fund and control their own schools, not the federal government.

Right. Let people fund and control their own military.

[Ronja]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Not only that, these Private schools receive a bucket load of public funding.

(which is also the gist of what red said)

That some organization is called "private" in everyday usage does not necessarily indicate that it is "completely independent of the government" in practice. IMO it would be both rational and respectful of non-Aussies (myself very much included) to take a look at a few information sources before expressing (further) opinions of the subject, so as not make ourselves look too ignorant or foolish. I have found these links, and would be thankful for something NSW specific, if that is easy to arrange. Thanks in advance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_and ... _Australia
http://www.isca.edu.au/html/funding_main.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/national/twoth ... -2jk4.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudds-26 ... -ev4p.html

[Seth]

America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

It would be protected but what can they do with their "creationism"? Nothing. They're not going to invent new things or develop new life saving treatments.

Sez who? Do you have any idea how many medical researchers hold strong religious opinions and yet manage to still do science?

Fail. That's obviously not due to their creationist belief. It's due to their training in science.

Right. That's what I was saying. Religious belief does not preclude someone getting a scientific education or being productive in science or any other field.

The notion that just because someone receives religious education, or believes it, does not automatically make them drooling morons. This is a calumny that anti-theists drag out that simply has no basis in fact.

But fine, I guess the best that one could hope for is that they see everyone else progressing while they're still praying to their imaginary friend and decide to join in.

Funnily enough your way might actually work in this country because the creationists are so few and scattered they would not be able to pool the resources to create private schools.

I wouldn't see much hope for some of the Southern States in America if schools went private, though.

Right. Let people fund and control their own schools, not the federal government.

Right. Let people fund and control their own military.

Er, they do. Who do you think pays for the military and elects those who control it?

As to schools, you're strawmanning. I've said numerous times that the states supervise education at the state level, not that there is no regulation of curricula. The federal government is duplicative, unnecessary, and dangerous.

[Seth]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

Force and fraud. How is not associating with someone an exercise in either force or fraud. For "shunning" to be using force against someone would require some sort of premise that claims that the individual being shunned has some prevailing right to associate with others against their will in voluntarily social or economic transactions. Is that what you're suggesting?

[Seth]

If it is private, can they rape babies?

No, pawiz, that would be inflicting physical harm on another person. Excluding them is not the same thing as that. Now go to bed.

So "physical harm" is the standard for what's legal and what's illegal is it? Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?

One of them.

[Seth]

The difference here is that the reason IS known, and by any normal standards it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference.

Fallacy. Your premise "any normal standards" is simply an affirmation of the consequent. You fail to define what "normal standards" are, or why "any" of them would preclude discrimination, when in fact many "standards" permit such discrimination to one degree or another for perfectly valid reasons.

Your claim is then that a person who dislikes homosexuals is under legal compulsion to invite a homosexual into his living room? Or a member of the KKK is compelled to invite a black person into their home? Or the Jewish grandmother is compelled to host a neo-Nazi in her home?

[Seth]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Oh here we go.

Human rights need to be upheld EVEN on private premises. Should the school be allowed to kill their students too?

Of course not, don't be stupider than you must be.

Association with others without their consent is not a "human right." People don't have a "right" to demand that others associate with them. To make such a claim is to disregard the necessary companion right that a freedom of association implies, which is a freedom not to associate.

In the US the Supreme Court recognized that widespread racial discrimination in the South that was a remnant of slavery was causing enormous social problems, so the Court acted to prohibit racial discrimination IN COMMERCE, at the federal level. It also desegregated schools and stated that all children, regardless of race, have a right to a public education. Where, exactly, that "right" came from is still something of a mystery, but that's how things stand. Other "status" conditions, which is to say natural characteristics like race and sex were included eventually, and "creed or religion" was added as well due to pervasive and socially harmful discrimination against various religious sects.

That principle is being extended to homosexuals today, as well it should be. But it's important to note that as late as 1983, the Supreme Court upheld anti-sodomy laws on the basis that sexual conduct may be regulated, even when it precludes homosexuals from enjoying their particular sexual practices, so long as the laws were aimed at ALL sexual conduct irrespective of the sexual orientation of the individuals. Only quite recently, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, were anti-sodomy laws struck down by the Court on privacy grounds.

But when it comes to anti-discrimination laws at the federal level, neither the Court nor the Congress can compel any individual to associate with any other individual outside of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause, and the right to freedom of association has been acknowledged by the Court to include the right to disassociation as well in one's private affairs.

Thus, while it may be unlawful to discriminate against a protected class (and gays are not a protected class at the federal level yet) in commerce, it's a fundamental civil right to discriminate against them in private matters.

[Cunt]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Er, not using force is force? Is that like not engaging in commerce is commerce?

No. Shunning is force.

When it is 'moral' it looks good enough, but what about when this 'popular shunning' ostracizes blacks, or gays, or people with intellectual disabilities?

It is force, and possibly one of the most effective kinds. It may well be 'democratic' force, it may even be favourable to state-organized force, but it is certainly force.

[Seth]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Er, not using force is force? Is that like not engaging in commerce is commerce?

No. Shunning is force.

How so?

When it is 'moral' it looks good enough, but what about when this 'popular shunning' ostracizes blacks, or gays, or people with intellectual disabilities?

It is force, and possibly one of the most effective kinds. It may well be 'democratic' force, it may even be favourable to state-organized force, but it is certainly force.

What about it? Is turning your back on someone and refusing to associate with them using force against them? I don't see how. Does it have social effects? Of course it does. It's intended to do so. But the effects are generated entirely by the desire of the shunned person for social interaction. The purpose of shunning is to encourage acceptable social behavior by refusing to validate unacceptable social behavior by granting the GIFT of association to those who refuse to respect the rights and needs of others.

No person who is shunned experiences the smallest degree of force, they experience only internal guilt and loneliness and a desire to be allowed to associate with others. But a person who does not care about associating with others suffers no such psychological effects and may not be affected by shunning in the slightest.

But in no way is it an exercise of "force," in the scientific sense, or even in the philosophical sense. If anything, it is a complete LACK of force; a vacuum of social interaction that people generally find uncomfortable.

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

[JimC]

Anyway, Seth's point is moot, because all private schools in Australia receive at least some government funding (whether they should or not is another argument). Given that, he who pays the piper calls the tune, so whatever Federal anti-discrimination laws exist should apply to all schools. The same applies to the current argument about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations; many of them take government money when they act as agents for a variety of social work and employment activities.