Tag Archives: paedophiles


Critical Incident Response Team

Critical Incident Response Team (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


16 February 2016
Sydney Anti-Discrimination Activist Garry Burns has taken legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( NSW ) against La Trobe City Councillor Christine Sindt over her publishing to her FaceBook page a statement that Mr.Burns is a “ gay child sex normalisation activist “ and other material suggesting homosexuals in general are criminals because they molest children.
Ms.Sindt allegedly made a complaint to Morwell Police on or about the 14 July 2015 that Mr.Burns had attempted to “blackmail” her into giving him money in exchange for him dropping his court proceedings against her.
“ I have not been contacted by Victoria’s Police Force in relation to any allegation of criminality and I believe Councillor Sindt is using Morwell Police in attempt to discredit or intimidate me and via third parties like Cahill. In the YouTube clip below from a Tom Cahill has been in contact with Sindt because he has put in email that I am an accused person in relation to my illegitimate dealings with Councillor Sindt ” in relation to blackmailing her” , said Mr.Burns.
The YouTube clip below also suggests that Mr.Burns is a pedophile and that homosexual men and women are pedophiles / criminals.
Mr.Burns has written to Minister of Police Mr.Wade Noonan , Minister for Local Government Ms. Natalie Hutchins , Chief Commissioner of Police Mr.Ashton and Premier Daniel Andrews but all seem to condone the pernicious practice of it’s Police Force; i.e , one of allowing a serious crime to hang over an innocent man’s head while others like Sindt use that allegation to incite third parties to hatred and violence against homosexuals while being condoned by those of the powerful position of the Victorian Labor Government.
‘ I suggest all those inept and incongruous politicians cc’d in above who’ve received a copy of this press release to order popcorn and cup cakes and sit back and listen to this YouTube clips perverted ramblings of hatred against me personally and toward fellow homosexual Australians” , said Mr.Burns.
Mr.Burns believes Victoria Police once they’ve received an allegation against a person alleging serious criminality they must investigate that allegation promptly so that they can either charge the person or dismiss the allegation as unfounded.
Garry Burns
0407-910- 309.

Anti-Islam Solicitor Robert Remo Balzola loses again


Balzola looses again

Anti-Islam Solicitor Robert Remo Balzola
loses another NCAT encounter with anti-discrimination campaigner Garry Burns.

See below case law.
NSW Crest

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 16
Hearing dates:
15 July 2015
Date of orders:
21 January 2016
Decision date:
21 January 2016
Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
A Britton, Principal Member
M O’Halloran, Member
M Murray, Member
1.   The complaint is substantiated.
2.   Within 14 days of the date of this decision the applicant must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a document setting out the orders, if any, he seeks under s 108(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and any evidence and submissions in support of that application; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the respondent in writing whether he consents to the issue of what orders, if any should be made, being determined “on the papers”.
3.   Within 14 days of the receipt of the material referred to in Order (2) the respondent must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any evidence and submissions in reply; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the applicant in writing whether he consents to the issue of orders, being determined “on the papers”.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — homosexual vilification — whether a publication was a public act of the respondent — whether the publication had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual persons
Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited:
Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 40
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284
Jones v Toben No 2 [2003] FCAFC 137; (2003) 199 ALR 1
Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389
Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 388
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1997) 194 CLR 355
Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207
Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44
Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102
Principal judgment
Garry Burns (Applicant)
Christopher Sunol (Respondent)
G Burns (Applicant in Person)
R Balzola & Associates(Respondent)
File Number(s):


  1. In 2014 Garry Burns lodged a complaint with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (respectively “the President” and “the Board”) about John Sunol, the respondent in these proceedings. The complaint concerns content published on the internet, which Mr Burns contends vilifies homosexuals. Section 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act) makes it unlawful for a person, by a “public act”, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the ground that the person(s) is, or is thought to be homosexual.
  2. The material which is the subject of Mr Burns’ complaint was published on a website apparently operated by a third party, Luke McKee (the offending content). Mr Burns contends that Mr Sunol invited followers of his blog to view the offending content by placing on his blog a link to, and a commentary about, the offending content. Mr Burns also contends that as a consequence of this placement Mr Sunol was responsible in the relevant sense for the act of communicating the offending content to the public.
  3. Mr Sunol disagrees and submits that he is not responsible for the material appearing on Mr McKee’s website. He argues that Mr Burns is targeting him, not Mr McKee, because Mr McKee is “outside the jurisdiction of NSW”. Further he contends that Mr Burns’ actions in targeting him and not the “ultimate author” demonstrates that Mr Burns’ complaint is vexatious. He describes Mr Burns as a serial complainant.
  4. The issues that arise for determination are:
  1. Whether the communication of the offending content was a “public act” of Mr Sunol
  2. If so, whether the offending content incited or had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual person(s), and
  3. If so, whether the requisite emotion was incited on the ground of the homosexuality of the person(s).
  1. If the answer to each of the above questions is yes we must also consider whether, as submitted by Mr Sunol, any of the exceptions listed in s 49ZT apply.
  2. For the reasons set out below we have found Mr Burns’ complaint to be substantiated.

Statutory framework

  1. Section 49ZT, makes it unlawful for a person to engage in a “public act” which amounts to homosexual vilification within the meaning of that section:

49ZT Homosexual vilification unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or

(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

  1. A “public act” is defined by s 49ZS to include:

In this Division:

“public act” includes:

(a) any form of communication to the public, including speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, telecasting, screening and playing of tapes or other recorded material, and

(b) any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public, including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia, and

(c) the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public with knowledge that the matter promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

Legal principles

  1. The vilification provisions of the Act have been the subject of detailed judicial consideration, most recently by the NSW Court of Appeal in Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44 (Sunol), Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389 (Jones) and Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 388 (Margan). The following principles relevant to this matter may be distilled from those authorities:
  1. an objective test must be used to determine whether a public act had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of a person or group on the ground of their homosexuality (the relevant reaction) (Jones at [53])
  2. “incite” in s 49ZT means to rouse, to stimulate, to urge, to spur on, to stir up or to animate and covers conduct involving commands, requests, proposals, actions or encouragement (Sunol at [41]; Margan at [11])
  3. for a contravention of s 49ZT it is not necessary to establish that anyone was incited (Sunol at [41]), or to establish an intention to incite (Sunol at [41]; Margan at [12])
  4. it is not sufficient that the impugned public act conveys hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of homosexual persons; it must be capable of inciting those reactions in an ordinary member (or ordinary reasonable member) of the class to whom the act is directed/the audience or likely audience (Sunol at [41])
  5. the assessment of the capacity of the public act to incite the relevant reaction must be undertaken by reference to the context in which it occurs (Sunol at [61])
  6. in making that assessment the particular class to whom the act is directed/ the audience or likely audience, must be identified and considered (Sunol at [34]; [61]; Jones at [62], [63]).

The offending content

  1. Mr Burns complained to the President that the following material, which is reproduced at Tab 1 of the President’s report, appeared on Mr Sunol’s website on 2 December 2014:

image of content published on Mr Sunol’s website on 2 December 2014

text version of content published (50.3 KB, rtf)

  1. In his complaint, Mr Burns claimed that the above link takes the reader to the following page (Attachment A) maintained by Mr McKee who apparently uses the name, “Hojurka”.

Attachment A

text version of Attachment A (52.6 KB, rtf)

“No evidence of link” argument

  1. In written submissions, Mr Sunol asserted that there is “no evidence” that the link to Mr McKee’s website that Mr Burns claims was on his website (theoffending link), “ever existed” and, by the operation of “the rule in Jones v Dunkel”, the complaint must fail.
  2. In a statutory declaration provided to the Board dated 22 December 2014, Mr Sunol declared that:
  1. He was not the author of the “purportedly offensive material’ found in the “said link” [to Mr McKee’s website].
  2. He does not have control over “blocking other parties posting links upon my blogs but only the control of removing material or links that actually appear on my blog”.
  3. On or about 6 December 2014 he noticed and removed from his blog the link described by Mr Burns. He then placed the following note on his website, which shows that the “purportedly offensive material” had been removed:

These articles are put on to show the coming of agenda 21 (coming of the new world order) or a one-world government, and issues related. This is to put all it represents as put in the media and other places such as news papers ect. I will change my writings from time to time as I deem the necessity to do so. johnsunol.blogspot.com.au / johnsunola.blogspot.com.au and johnsunolb.blogspot.com.au – (this blog)

[For convenience we will refer to this passage as “the disclaimer”.]

  1. When questioned in these proceedings Mr Sunol gave a different account. He not only admitted placing the offending link on his website but described to the Tribunal how he did so. He also admitted placing the commentary on his website that appears at Tab 1 of the President’s report.
  2. The suggestion in Mr Sunol’s statutory declaration that “other parties” might have posted the link on his website is implausible, unsupported and contradicted by his oral evidence.
  3. The submission that there is “no evidence” that the page on Mr Sunol’s website and the offending link “ever existed” must be rejected.

“Material does not exist” at time of complaint argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that because the offending link was allegedly removed before the President notified him of the complaint on 15 December 2014, the President lacked jurisdiction to refer the complaint to NCAT.
  2. This argument is misconceived. There is the nothing in the Act that prevents the President from referring to the Tribunal, or the Tribunal from determining, a complaint where the alleged contravention of the Act has ceased. The only provision in the Act to impose a temporal requirement in relation to the making of a complaint is s 89B(2)(b), which provides that the President may decline a complaint if the alleged conduct occurred more than 12 months before the complaint was made.

The statutory construction argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that to constitute a “public act”, the impugned act must satisfy either paragraph (a) or (b) and, in addition the second limb of paragraph (c) of s 49ZS — that the alleged vilifier had knowledge that the act promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person(s). In support of that contention, Mr Sunol points to the use of the word “and” at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b), which he submits operates to link or “hard wire” those paragraphs with paragraph (c). He cites in support of this proposition, Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (Catch the Fire) at [16].
  2. This submission must be rejected. Section 49ZS sets out a non-exhaustive list of acts that constitute a “public act”. The definition lists three broad categories of “acts”:
  • any form of communication to the public, including speaking …, and
  • any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public…, and
  • the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public…
  1. The use of the conjunction “and” at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b) simply indicates that the acts listed in each of the three paragraphs fall within the scope of the definition. This is made plain by the opening words of the definition: “Public act includes …”
  2. The literal meaning of the definition is that an act will constitute a “public act” if it satisfies any one of the three paragraphs listed in s 49ZS. While, as the High Court emphasised in Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1997) 194 CLR 355 at 381-2, 384, the proper approach to statutory interpretation is contextual rather than strictly literal, there is nothing in either the definition itself, its context or the language of the Act to suggest that the definition should be construed to mean that an impugned act caught by paragraph (a) or (b), must also satisfy the second limb of paragraph (c).
  3. The decision of the Court of Appeal of Victoria in Catch the Fire does not, as Mr Sunol contends, support the proposition he advances about the operation of the definition. The passage he cites relates to a discussion about the meaning of the word “incitement”.

The disclaimer argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that the disclaimer posted on 6 December 2014 makes it clear that he was not endorsing the views expressed by Mr McKee but rather encouraging people to “make up their own minds”.
  2. While it is not entirely clear how long the material the subject of Mr Burns’ complaint was on Mr Sunol’s website before the disclaimer was posted, the available evidence indicates that it was at least a couple of days. Mr Burns testified that he saw the material (at Tab 1 of the President’s Report) on or about 2 December 2014. The length of time that the material appeared on Mr Sunol’s website before the disclaimer was posted may be relevant to the issue of relief, but it is otherwise irrelevant to our determination.

Is the offending communication a public act of Mr Sunol within the meaning of para (a) of s 49ZS?

  1. There is no argument that the publication of material on the internet, which as in this case is not password protected, is “a form of communication to the public”. Nor is there any disagreement that the communication of the offending content is a “public act” within the meaning of s 49ZS of the Act. The issue in dispute is whether its communication to the public is a public act by Mr Sunol.
  2. The definition of public act must be read in the context of the substantive provision, s 49ZT of the Act, which makes it unlawful for a person, by a public act to incite … Mr Sunol contends that the offending content was not a form of communication by him but rather a form of communication for which Mr McKee is responsible. Mr Burns, on the other hand, contends that by placing on his website the words “all should read this … all should read this and make their own decision” and providing a link to Mr McKee’s website, Mr Sunol was inviting or encouraging his “followers” to read the offending content. Mr Sunol disagrees and argues that the words on his website were nothing more than a “bald invitation” and are insufficient to attribute responsibility to him for the offending content.
  3. In support of their respective positions, both parties referred us to decisions of NCAT and one of its predecessor tribunals, the Administrative Decision Tribunal, in which both were parties.
  4. In Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246 (Burns 2012), the Tribunal (differently constituted) considered whether Mr Sunol had communicated to the public three publications, which appeared on websites maintained by third parties. The Tribunal reasoned (at [34]) that Mr Sunol was relevantly responsible for two of those publications because first, each contained material that he had composed and, second, Mr Sunol expressly invited users who had logged onto it to click on the requisite phrase and gain access to the publications. With respect to the third publication, the Tribunal held that Mr Sunol was not responsible for its communication to the public: “It is not clear from the evidence relating to [that] publication … that any such invitation existed on a website maintained by Mr Sunol”: at [35].
  5. More recently, in Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 40 (Burns 2015), the Tribunal found that the publication of statements relating to a YouTube clip, which appeared on a website that was not maintained by Mr Sunol, nonetheless constituted a public act of Mr Sunol. The Tribunal found at [41] that the words posted by Mr Sunol on his website —“some very interesting videos on corruption from Luke McKee” — constituted an invitation to access those videos and taken together with the accompanying link made Mr Sunol responsible in the relevant sense for the impugned “public act”.
  6. Mr Sunol contends that the Tribunal in Burns 2015 misapplied the principles established in Burns 2012, which he contends establish the:
  1. First responsibility test
  2. Operator test
  3. Accessibility test
  4. Knowledge test
  5. Intention test
  6. Second responsibility test
  7. Composition test.
  1. If Mr Sunol is contending that Burns 2012 is authority for the proposition that the alleged vilifier will only be relevantly responsible for the publication of material said to vilify homosexuals appearing on a website maintained by third party, if each of the above “tests” is satisfied, we cannot agree. It is a misreading of Burns 2012 to suggest that the Tribunal held that where the impugned material is published on the website of a third party, the alleged vilifier will only be relevantly responsible if they were the operator of the third party website, primarily responsible for the publication of, or the author of the impugned material, or placed that material on that website.
  2. There is no evidence to contradict Mr Sunol’s claim that he was not the operator of Mr McKee’s website, the author of the offending content, or that he posted the offending content on that website. The real issue is whether his actions in putting the offending link and the surrounding words on his website, is sufficient to make him relevantly responsible for the communication of the offending material.
  3. Consistent with the approach taken by the Tribunals in Burns 2012 and Burns 2015, the determination of this issue requires consideration of the context in which the offending link appears, including any surrounding words and images.
  4. We agree with the submission made by Mr Burns that the words posted on Mr Sunol’s website constitute an express invitation to people visiting Mr Sunol’s website to click on the offending link and view the offending content. The statement “I think all should read this and make their own decision if they back it [the legalization of Phedofelia [sic]]” does not make the words appearing on Mr Sunol’s website any less of an invitation or encouragement to view the offending content. Read in context we find that the material appearing on Mr Sunol’s website constituted an express invitation to users to click on the offending link and access the offending content.
  5. We find that Mr Sunol was responsible, in the relevant sense, for the “public act” of communicating the offending content to the public. In reaching that conclusion, we note that the offending content could be accessed in a number of ways not just through the offending link on Mr Sunol’s website.

Did the offending material have the capacity to incite?

  1. We must evaluate whether the offending content had the capacity to incite — to rouse, to stimulate, to urge, to spur on, to stir up or to animate — hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of homosexual(s) in the ordinary (or ordinary reasonable) member of the relevant audience, on the grounds of their homosexuality.
  2. To undertake that task, consistent with the authorities, we must first identify the relevant audience and then consider the likely effect of the offending content on the notional ordinary or ordinary reasonable member of that audience.

Identification of the audience

  1. The relevant audience are internet users who viewed the offending content via Mr Sunol’s website. We have no evidence about who accessed the offending content via this path, apart from Mr Burns. According to Mr Sunol, his followers, who, he claims number just under 1000, represent a cross section of the community and include politicians, journalists and public commentators. We also think it likely that it includes people who share similar views on issues championed by Mr Sunol, such as opposition to same sex marriage. Mr Burns apparently follows Mr Sunol on the internet for the purpose of monitoring the type of material he promotes. According to Mr Sunol, Mr Burns is but one of a number of “trolls” who follow him on-line to “catch him out”.
  2. Given the ease with which sites can be accessed via the internet, we think it reasonable to assume that the audience probably also included people who put the term “paedophilia” into a search engine or otherwise stumbled across Mr Sunol’s blog.
  3. It is likely that members of the audience would hold a diverse range of opinions about homosexual people and same sex marriage, ranging from ignorance, support and strong opposition. We think it likely that a fair number of the audience would hold similar views to Mr Sunol about these issues. It is also likely that the audience includes people such as Mr Burns who hold opposing views, and people who hold no views about these issues.

Ordinary or ordinary reasonable member of the audience?

  1. As Bathurst CJ commented in Sunol at [32], there is a divergence of opinion as to whether the assessment of the capacity of the impugned act to incite is to be made by reference to the “ordinary”, “reasonable” or “ordinary reasonable” member of the relevant audience. The Chief Justice expressed a preference for the question to be answered having regard to the effect of the act on an “ordinary member” of the relevant group. He explained (at [34]):

[T]hat, of my view, can be measured only be reference to an ordinary member of the class to whom the public act is directed. To determine the issue by reference to a reasonable person without considering the particular class to whom the speech or public act is directed would, in my opinion, impose an undue restriction on the operation of the legislation.

  1. Allsop J, on the other hand, took the view that the question is ultimately one to be determined having regard to the context in which the offending act took place, reasoning (at [61]):

The question of the audience against which the public act is to be assessed for the purposes of s 49ZT(1) may be very important in any individual case. It will be intimately connected with the whole context of the public act. Thus, in an emotionally charged public meeting where reason has been pushed aside by passion or hatred, it may be inappropriate to posit the standard of the “reasonable” member of the class which may be aptly described as a group of impassioned bigots. The question is ultimately one of fact in the context in which the act takes place. If the general public is being addressed, bearing in mind the approach conformable with Brown and Coco, the ordinary and reasonable members of the public may be appropriate to consider.

  1. In Jones, Ward JA at [53] referred to, but did not determine, the issue characterising the test as the “ordinary member (or perhaps an ordinary reasonable member)” (at [61], [62]).
  2. More recently in Margan, the Court of Appeal appeared to endorse the approach taken by Bathurst CJ in Sunol, stating (at [76]) that the assessment should be made by reference to the ordinary member of the audience to whom the public act is directed, not the ordinary reasonable member.


  1. The offending content conveys a number of messages:
  • That US President Obama’s friends include “gay paedophiles”
  • That President Obama and the US Democratic party support homosexuals and same sex marriage and, as a consequence, paedophilia
  • That Barrie Drewitt Barlow [a homosexual man who announced that he had fathered a child using a surrogate mother] is a paedophile
  • That same sex marriage is a ruse being used to legalise paedophilia
  • That the “movers and shakers” in the campaign for same sex marriage are motivated so they can “get little boys to rape”
  • That gay men have a “sexual need” to rape children.
  1. In Western society paedophilia is unlawful and attracts strong moral condemnation. It is difficult to think of a more damaging slur or insult than to accuse a person of being a paedophile.
  2. Self-evidently the likely audience in this case is not a homogenous group. It is probable that a range of reactions to the offending content would be invoked. It is improbable that it had the capacity to incite Mr Burns or those who share his views about homosexuality and same sex marriage, to have hatred towards or serious contempt for homosexual persons. Nor in our opinion, is it likely to have the capacity to incite those reactions in uses who may not share Mr Burns’ views but are nonetheless rational and possess some basic understanding about those issues. As noted, we think it likely that the audience would include people, like Messrs Sunol and McKee, who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. We think the use of intemperate language and the tone of the offending content was capable of stirring up, feelings of hatred toward and severe contempt for male homosexuals in the ordinary member of that sub-group.
  3. We find the offending content was capable of inciting the ordinary member of the relevant group to have hatred towards and severe contempt for male homosexuals.

On the grounds of

  1. We find that one of the “real”, “genuine” or “true” reasons for those reactions having the capacity to incite the notional ordinary member of the relevant audience to have hatred towards and severe contempt for male homosexuals, was their sexuality.

Do any of exceptions apply?

  1. Section 49ZT(2) operates to except certain public acts which might otherwise be unlawful by the operation of s 49ZT(1). Mr Sunol bears the onus of establishing that an exception applies (s 104 of the Act). He relies on s 49ZT(2)(c), which states:

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, or academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

  1. Mr Sunol submits that his motivation in placing the offending link on his website was to encourage discussion in the public interest about the same sex marriage debate.
  2. To avail himself of the exception Mr Sunol must establish on the balance of probabilities that his action in communicating the offending content was done:
  • Reasonably and in good faith
  • For academic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.
  1. Mr Sunol asserts that there is scientific evidence that homosexuals have a propensity to “rape or sexually abuse children”. He was unable to point to any supporting material.
  2. There is a range of opinion within the community about whether same sex marriage should be legalised. The offending content goes somewhat further than voicing strong opposition to same sex marriage. It promotes the view that it should not be permitted because homosexual men have a tendency to sexually abuse children.
  3. Even if accepted, as claimed by Mr Sunol, that the offending act was done in good faith and not motivated by ill-will or other improper motive (see for example, Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102; Jones v Toben No 2 [2003] FCAFC 137; (2003) 199 ALR 1), we are not satisfied having regard to the inflammatory tone and intemperate language of the offending content together with the lack of any evidence of steps taken by Mr Sunol to determine whether there was any basis for the proposition that male homosexuals have a tendency to sexually abuse children, that it could be said that his act in communicating the offending content was done “reasonably”.
  4. Mr Sunol has not discharged the onus of establishing that his public act was done reasonably. Therefore the defence in s 49ZT(1)(c) cannot be relied upon.


  1. The complaint made by Mr Burns is substantiated.


  1. At the hearing we decided to give the parties the opportunity to make submissions about what if any orders should be made under s 108(2) of the Act, if we determined the complaint was substantiated. We did so in part because Mr Sunol advised that he had lodged an appeal against the decision in Sunol2015 to order that he refrain from publishing material on his or third party websites material of the type the subject of this complaint. The appeal was dismissed: Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207. We direct:
  1. Within 14 days of the date of this decision the applicant must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a document setting out the orders, if any, he seeks under s 108(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and any evidence and submissions in support of that application; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the respondent in writing whether he consents to the issue of what orders, if any should be made, being determined “on the papers”.
  2. Within 14 days of the receipt of the material referred to in Order (2) the respondent must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any evidence and submissions in reply; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the applicant in writing whether he consents to the issue of orders, being determined “on the papers”.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.


I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

DISCLAIMER – Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

Decision last updated: 21 January 2016



18 January 2016


Corbett to face the Supreme Court 15 February 2016

A former candidate from Bob Katter’s Australia Party who likened gays and lesbians to pedophiles during an interview on the campaign trail in 2013 had been found to have engaged in homosexual vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( NSW ) by the former NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ( ADT )  and ordered the defendant to publish an apology in the Sydney Morning Herald pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
Ms.Corbett was Bob Katter’s candidate for the Victorian seat of Wannon in the federal election until she was stood down in January of 2013 after telling her local paper , “ I don’t want gays , lesbians or pedophilies working in my kindergarten”.
“ If you don’t like it , go to another kindergarten “ , Ms.Corbett told the Hamilton Spectator.
When asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as pedophiles , Ms.Corbett replies , “ yes “.
“ Pedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same was as gays and lesbians and get rights, “ she said.
Ms.Corbett appealed the 2013 decision of first instance citing St Paul as a defence but her appeal was rightly dismissed by the court of appeal.
Anti-Discrimination Campaigner and Public Interest Litigant Garry Burns initiated the proceedings against Ms.Corbett under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( NSW ). The Tribunal ordered the defendant to publish an apology in the Sydney Morning Herald in a prominent position pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 at her own expense and to also apologise to Mr.Burns in writing.
Ms.Corbett has failed to comply with an order of the NSW Civil Administrative Tribunal ( NCAT ) and on Tuesday 22 December 2015 Mr.Burns commenced “ contempt ” proceedings against the defendant in the NSW Supreme Court.
The Orders Mr.Burns seeks the court to make are ;
1. Ms.Corbett be found guilty of contempt of Court for failing to comply with the order made on the 24 September 2014 , in that the defendant failed to procure by 13 November 2015 , at her expense , the publication of the apology in the Sydney Morning Herald pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
2. Ms.Corbett be found guilty of contempt of Court for failing to comply with the order made on the 24 September 2014 , in that the defendant failed to forward by 13 November 2015 a signed letter of apology to the plaintiff Mr.Burns.
3. The defendant Ms.Corbett be punished for her contempt by “ Fine “.
4. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis.
Mr.Burns is “ NOT ” seeking that the defendant Ms.Corbett be punished for her contempt by “ Jail “.
“ My public interest work is not about punishing individuals , it is about educating people in powerful positions of their responsibilities under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to not make pernicious public statement’s that have a “ capacity ” or “ effect ” of inciting ridicule , contempt or hatred against homosexual Australians ” , Mr.Burns said.
Hearing Details
The Motion is listed at 9am on Monday 15 February 2016 in the Supreme Court of NSW.
Mr.Burns said , “ It is now up to the Judiciary on how it deals with this defendant in relation to the allegation of “contempt ”. My initiating of “contempt proceedings” against Ms.Corbett is to send a very clear and precise message to the Australian public that there are consequences if a defendant of an order of the NSW Civil Administrative Tribunal ( NCAT ) ignores it ”.
Mr.Burns wanted to engineer a very creative settlement / remedy. It’s terms must reflect his belief in the “public interest” in the defending of gay men and women’s rights to freedom from public acts of discrimination and or unlawful homosexuality vilification.
For further information please contact Garry Burns on ;
02 -9363-0372 or 
The defendant’s solicitor is Robert Remo Balzola who can be contacted on the below numbers ;
02-9283-8180 or

George Pell – time to tell the truth about your priests and Paedophilia

George Pell - You disgusting man.

George Pell – You disgusting man.


English: Placard at the Protest the Pope Rally...

English: Placard at the Protest the Pope Rally in London.

I could talk about Pell’s notoriety within the church, his Ballarat time apparently lying to Australia about other Priests and clergy within the Catholic Church, the now apparent disgusting acts of Paedophilia towards girls and boys within the school structure, and Pell can still hold a “straight” face in front of cameras,  denying the atrocious and disgusting acts of his priests in many parishes.

Pell, I say you have lied for many many years, and supported your paedophile priests in Australia with no regard to the children that were abused..

You, your so called religion, and your paedophilia priests should be put in jail the the rest of your lives. Pell you absolute low life should at the very least apologise to the children that your disgusting Catholic rapists assaulted.






Battling the ‘homosexual agenda,’ the hard-line religious right has made a series of incendiary claims. But they’re just not true.

By Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement some 40 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize gay people — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gay men and lesbians to “recruit” in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade. But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that sexual orientation is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gay men molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community, which is more targeted for such attacks than any other minority group in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that “the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children.” A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.

According to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners “hold true to the group’s core beliefs … [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” The group’s 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.

In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.

No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement wasreaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.” In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.

A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.

The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

Many anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.” He also has repeatedly said, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”

A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.

No scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its websitethat “experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation” and added that it’s unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.

Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.

In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College,noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

Anti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice,” often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children.

This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled  “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”

However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute,has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”

Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.

MYTH # 5
Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their “unusual brutality” would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, “the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history,” the book claims. “While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism,” Lively and Abrams add. “To the myth of the ‘pink triangle’ — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the ‘pink swastika.'”

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-linerefutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the “degeneracy” they were trying to eradicate.

When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany’s existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be “eliminated” in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: “We must exterminate these people root and branch. … We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated.”

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would “jail pastors” because it “criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda.”

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.

Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their “sexual orientation” (among other factors) — “protect pedophiles,” as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.

Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or “protect” pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

Anti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries “ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. “But when the integration became a reality,” the report said, “there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions.” Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. “None of the dire predictions of doom came true,” the Palm Center report said.

Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.

MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

Anti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice,” even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-lineTraditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”

The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”

Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”

In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”

Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather,social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.

MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.

Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.” In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”

There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, “You don’t have to be gay!” Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”

“Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that“[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”

The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own studyin 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.

In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”





14 August 2015

A former candidate from Bob Katter’s Australia Party who likened gays and lesbians to pedophiles during an interview on the campaign trail in the 2013 General Election has refused to comply with the Orders of the court and publish an apology pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Tess Corbett was Bob Katter’s candidate for the Victorian Seat of Wannon in the federal election until she stood down in January of 2013 after telling her local paper “ I don’t want gays , lesbians or pedophiles working in my kindergarten”.
“ If you don’t like it , go to another kindergarten , Ms.Corbett told the Hamilton Spectator.
When asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as pedophiles , Ms.Corbett replied “ yes”.
“ Pedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights, “ she said.
Anti-Discrimination Campaigner Garry Burns took the matter to the Anti-Discrimination Board , claiming her statement’s breached the Anti-Vilification Provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( NSW ).
On Monday 17 August 2015 at 2pm a hearing will be held in the NSW Civil Administrative Tribunal ( NCAT ) ( Court 10.3 ) to determine if Ms.Corbett is in “contempt of the Tribunal” for refusing to publish an apology as ordered in the Sydney Morning Herald and to apologise to Mr.Burns.
The address of the hearing is :
NSW Civil Administrative Tribunal ( NCAT )
John Maddison Tower
Level 10 86-90 Goulburn Street
Sydney NSW 2000.
Mr.Burns said “ This was a creative settlement. It’s terms reflect my belief in the public interest in defending gay men and women’s rights to freedom from discrimination and vilification. If Ms.Corbett thinks she can avoid a court order and refuse to publish an apology in relation to her unlawful conduct she better think again because the hearing on Monday may well remind her she is not above the law”.
For highly distressing reasons , the Australian public at the present day is being made particularly aware of the serious and long -lasting psychological damage suffered by victims of pedophilia, “The Tribunal’s Deputy President Michael Chesterman said in his written decision.
“ At any time , and especially at this time , and pronouncement that “brackets”… homosexual people with pedophiles is capable of ….urging ( people ) to treat homosexuals as deserving to be hated or to be regarded with serious contempt”.
“ Ms.Corbett’s claims …. do not merely offend or insult : they incite these negative reactions”.
Media Contact
Garry Burns

Homosexual Men Are Paedophiles – Myth Debunked

Hi All

Due to the constant attack on me and other gay men regarding the belief by some that Homosexual men are paedophiles, I thought it time to put the following together to negate this anti social belief.Gay_Men_Baby

(original article here) – UC DAVIS University Of California – Psychology

UC Davis

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to menexceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Prof. Herek’s blog    Subscribe to
Prof. Herek’s blog

Open bibliography
in a separate

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization “Save Our Children,” and warned that “a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children” (Bryant, 1977, p. 114). [Bibliographic references are on a different web page]In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America’s policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley’s resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

It has also been raised in connection with scandals about the Catholic church’s attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests. Indeed, the Vatican’s early response to the 2002 revelations of widespread Church cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests was to declare that gay men should not be ordained.

Public belief in
the stereotype
The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that “Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.”1By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse childrenwas endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 54% in 2005, compared to 27% in 1977.
Examining the
Even though most Americans don’t regard gay people as child molesters, confusion remains widespread in this area. To understand the facts, it is important to examine the results of scientific research. However, when we evaluate research on child molestation, our task is complicated by several problems.One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.
Terminology A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms.Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don’t imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: “The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however” (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-malemolestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

Typologies of
The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.Over the years, this facthas been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example,Finkelhor andAraji (1986) proposed that perpetrators’ sexual attractionsshould be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means “a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being “stuck” at an early stage of psychological development.

By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is “a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual’s development” (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to menexceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representingall of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of casesin which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides ofmales andfemales of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened toensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the modelwas clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slideswere accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volumewere monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexualmales responded no more to male children than heterosexualmales responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
The Mainstream
Reflecting the results of these and other studies, as well as clinical experience, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who workin the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. NicholasGroth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual(Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a later literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. For example, a 1998 comprehensive review of published empirical research on the sexual abuse of boys reported only one study (the 1994 study by Jenny and colleagues, cited above) that included data about the self-reported sexual orientation of perpetrators (Holmes & Slap, 1998).

Proving something that is already widely known simply isn’t a priority for scientists. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters “have little to do with everyday child abuse” and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children’s sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994).

Sexual Abuse
In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old.These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raisedthe question of whether gay peopleshouldn’t be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others.Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult’s sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning.

Gay men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. The research literature doesn’t reveal any differences between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring gay and bisexual people as employees or managers. Many corporations, educational institutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of those organizations provide benefits such as health insurance for employees’ same-sex partners. Indeed, one widely cited reason for offering such benefits is that they enable a company to remain competitive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Thus, there is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults.

What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?Some conservative groups have argued that scientific research strongly supports their claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. The Family Research Council has produced what is perhaps the most extensive attempt to document this claim. It is an article by Timothy J. Dailey titledHomosexuality and Child Abuse.With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, it appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue. On further examination, however, its central argument – that “the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls” – doesn’t hold up.

In the following section, the main sources cited by Dailey and the FRC to support their claim are reviewed. The papers are listed in the same order in which they are first cited by the FRC article.

  1. Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.This article is discussed above in the “Other Approaches” section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors’ conclusion: “Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.”
  2. Silverthorne & Quinsey. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.The FRC cites this study to challenge theFreund et al. data (see theprevious paper above). However, the methodologies were quite different.Freund and his colleagues used a sample that included sex offenders and theyassessed sexual arousal with a physiological measure similar to that described below for the 1988 Marshall et al. study.Silverthorne andQuinsey used a sample of community volunteers whowere asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. Theapparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr.Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independentraters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.The article doesn’t report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren’t reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as “very sexually attractive” (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

    On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

    A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn’t control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women’s faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women’s faces in the other age groups. But they didn’t address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

    This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

    Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn’t support the FRC’s contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

    • the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
    • all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
    • the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants’ sexual arousal.
  3. Blanchard et al. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn’t assessed.
  4. Elliott et al. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn’t assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.
  5. Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.This study, described above in the section on “Other Approaches,” contradicts the FRC’s argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn’t directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims’ medical charts for information about the offender’s sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.
  6. Marshall et al. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.In this study, the researchers compared 21 men who had sexually molested a male under 16 years (and at least 5 years younger than themselves) to 18 unemployed men who were not known to have molested a child. Over a series of sessions, each man watched color slides of nudemales andfemales of various ages and listened toaudiotaped descriptions of both coercive and consensual sexual interactions between a man and a boy. During the sessions, each man sat in a private booth, where hewas instructed to lower his trousers and underwear and attach a rubber tube to his penis. The tube detected any changes in penis circumference, with increases interpreted as indicating sexual arousal.The FRC cites this study as showing that “a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders.” This is true but hardly relevant to their claims.

    The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders’ adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.

  7. Bickley & Beech. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.This is a literature review and theoretical paper that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various systems for classifying child molesters. In citing this study, the FRC says it:

    refers to homosexual pedophiles as a “distinct group.” The victims of homosexual pedophiles “were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences…. Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls” and that the “recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders.”

    In reality, however, the paper was summarizing the findings of other studies, not reporting new data. In the passage excerpted by the FRC, the authors were discussing published papers that used a classification system focusing entirely on the sex of victims (not whether the perpetrator is straight or gay). Here is the complete text (the passages that FRC omitted are highlighted):

    “Grubin and Kennedy (1991) reported that when dividing sex offenders based simply on the sex of their victims, offenders against boys stood out as a distinct group. They noted that their victims were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. Other studieshave employed the sex-of-victim approach in the prediction of future risk, with offenders who have sexually abused boys or both boys and girls reported as having more victims and being at greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls only [bibliographic references omitted]. In the nondiagnostic remarks, DSM-IV (APA, 1994) claims that the recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders,and although not demonstrating such a marked difference, Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989), in an extensive review of recidivism rates, found that reoffending was higher for male victim offenders. [¶] However, the sex-of-victim distinction has not been consistently found, and contrasting findings have been reported in studies that have demonstrated no differences in recidivism rates between the groups[bibliographic references omitted]. Furthermore, Abel, Becker, Murphy, and Flanagan (1981) found that those child molesters who offended against girls reported more than twice as many victims as those who had offended against boys, a finding contrary to the hypothesized outcome.” (p. 56)

  8. Jay & Young. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.This book, published more than 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors’ survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.
  9. Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn’t explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret or evaluate. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.

In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.

Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron’s survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws asto bevirtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are sometimes quoted byantigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, “Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?” (p. 1227). He concluded that “at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual” (p. 1228) and that “those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth” than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron’s claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron’s paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of “heterosexual” (i.e., female victim) to “homosexual” (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that “54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners” (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that noneof the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The “54%” statistic reported by Cameron doesn’t appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It is also noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. He incorporated a “bisexual correction” into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men.

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether “homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils” (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that “a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner” (p.1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.

This ratio is meaningless because no data were obtained concerning the actual sexual orientation of the teachers involved; as before, Cameron assumed that male-male contacts were perpetrated by homosexuals. Furthermore, Cameron’s rationale for selecting particular sources appears to have been completely arbitrary. He described no systematic method for reviewing the literature, and apparently never reviewed the voluminous literature on the sexual development of children and adolescents. His final choice of sources appears to have slanted his findings toward what Cameron described as “the relative absence in the scientific literature of heterosexual teacher-pupil sexual events coupled with persistent, albeit infrequent, homosexual teacher-pupil sexual interactions” (p. 1232).

A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself admitted that his conclusions in this study are “based upon small numbers of data points” (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as “homosexual” molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators’ sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.

In yet another article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron claimed to have reviewed data about sexual abuse by foster parents in Illinois and found that 34% of the perpetrators had abused a foster child of their own sex, that is, female-female or male-male abuse (Cameron, 2005). Not only did Cameron again make the fallacious claim that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals, he also made the same claim about female-female molestations. Once again, he had no data about the actual sexual orientations of the molesters.

Cameron continues to produce reports that essentially repeat the same inaccurate claims. Perhaps one of the best indicators of his diminished credibility in this area is that his work was not even cited in the 2004 FRC report discussed in detail above.

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

1. The survey was conducted under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute (Klassen, Williams, & Levitt, 1989). (return to text)
2. Sexual abuse by women occurs but has not been well documented. Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that the child molester stereotype is applied more often to gay men than to lesbians. (return to text)