There are a few things worth considering.
1.
Chinese and Indian students are very welcome but must come on valid visas and passports. Extreme vigilance must be exercised that the system isnt being rorted.

2. They should make it clear if they have really come with a view to immigrating finally after they have succeeded in their studies/research. Their countries could well do with the knowledge and skills they acquire.
3 If they wish to remain they should be made to understand the pitfalls so that they cant claim they were hoodwinked into believing otherwise and therefore they cannot make any claims on Australia. They should realise that there is the darker side to life in Australia and if they fall victim to it then it isnt because we are racists but that we ourselves are more vulnerable to all of it than they are. They must be brave enough to be accepting and understanding.

4. Australia cannot but be considerably enriched by their scientific and entreprenurial skills. We already have been but things can only be made better.
The future of this country may owe much to the influx if all gores well. Make them welcome with courage and open hearts.

socratease

Just for the record, Indian students have been coming to Australia since the inception of the Colombo Plan in 1950. While there has been a huge increase in numbers and aims substantially different in recent years tne original intent of the scheme was magnificently achieved.

It was intended students arriving in Australia under the plan would return home to assist in the development of the member countries economies.

Australia has been successfully involved and engaged with India for over 50 years. To suggest otherwise is erroneous.

For the past 5 summers I have opened my home as a hostel for South Korean backpackers. Although I have been accused of being racist for singling out one race of people, I began doing so when I saw the active discrimination against them. By only advertising my vacancies in the Korean language I believe all that I am doing is positively discriminating in their favour.
Most of my clientele are already graduates of South Korean universities. They come to Australia to work two years in the fruit and vegetable harvest industries and to earn money. Then many will go home and apply to return to Australia under education visas to upgrade the graduate qualifications they already possess. Having spent two years working in Australia they are familiar with Australian culture when they make the decision that they wish to qualify to become Australian citizens.
Incidentally I already have one granddaughter who has worked in China for three years, and another who is undertaking a double degree at the St. Lucia Queensland University, studying commerce and Chinese studies. She has just completed a 3 months immersion in Chinese in a university in Taiwan during what was her Australian university holiday break.

I thought the anger was due to a perception that Australia has the developed World's equivalent of the Nigerian Loan Scam. Many Indians have come to Australia on false promises of residency. They spend the family fortune on bogus courses, and when they finally realise they have been had, find to their desolation that the Australian Government only seems eager to deport them. They return to their newly impoverished lives and families, only to see the same spivs spruiking the same scams. No wonder Indians are so angry. If the Australian Government was fair dinkum they would make a bit more effort to put the scammers out of business instead of giving their victims an impression of indifference, perhaps even complicity.

Good one,Fester.
I have often why the government hasnt monitored the industry more closely and why, now, they have done next to nothing.It is scandalous.
Readers of this blog should take your words to heart.

socratease

Keith,
I thought we entered into the Colombo plan to help Australian trade.

You know. We educate your young, and in return, you buy our produce.

If so, then the plan has been a total disaster, as we now have a huge trade deficit.

Worse still, we have an underskilled population, we have a mentality of import, import, import, and we now depend on what we can dig out of the ground to pay for our debts.

Training foreign students has been of very little use to Australia.

It has been a rort from beginning to end.

Vanna, whose fault has it been that the system has been and is being rorted ?
Both are equally to blame. Australia has ne idea how to conduct these critical operations.

socratease

socratease,
Australia has been rorted.

As for the murders of Indians in Australia, they have now found every murderer except one, and every murderer has been someone from Indian background (including one Indian student who murdered two other Indians, and an Indian man who recently killed a four year old Indian boy).

Where is the racism, one could ask?

Vanna,I never said there was racism. There is only stupid violentanti-social behaviour which victimizes EVERYONE. Indians should realise this.

socratease

Socratease,
Well perhaps the author could properly research the situation before they write another article in the YaleGlobal Online.

The vast majority of violence against Indians in Australia, has been perpetrated by other Indians.

This information is readily obtainable, and one has to wonder what they teach during journalism classes at the National University of Singapore, the author’s home university.

And all these years Australia has been training foreign students, to only receive pin money from their countries in return.

Our trade deficit readily highlights that.

Both our views are valid vanna.

"The vast majority of violence against Indians in Australia, has been perpetrated by other Indians."

Vanna, I don't know if that's actually true. I would think not, provided your not including domestic violence.
In another post I have given examples of how the most recent murders of indians in Australia have nearly all (except for 1 unsolved crime) been committed by indians. However stating " the vast majority of violence" is a totally different thing involving many thousands of incidents.
I would guess most would be caused by various different ethnic groups but I have no proof of such. The reason I highlighted murders was because it involves a relatively small number, therefore easy to count, and in addition the culprits are usually well publicised.

The government refuses to collect data on criminals ethnic background, because following a report on ethnic cime in Australia a few ears ago, it was decided by the panel that collecting such data could be inflammatory. Thus we will really never know which groups re responsible.

ozzie,
I think there will be more of a backlash against foreign students in future years, and it will not be racially or ethnically motivated.

With so many foreign students now in the country, they are taking up too much cheap accommodation, and taking up too many part time jobs. With large numbers of baby boomers about to retire, many will want part time work to supplement their retirement incomes. That work will include taxi driving, cleaning work, restaurant work, gardening etc, the type of work so many foreign students are now doing.

I’ve been to over 20 countries, and enjoyed it, but not only are we training the opposition by training so many foreign students (and receiving pin money from their countries in return), they are now taking up the cheap accommodation and part time work that many retirees will be searching for.

Cheap accomodation for students? Really ?
Why not ask these unfortunate impecunious young foreigners about what you call "cheap accomodation?"
Landlords are proving unscruplous and greedy. Students,foreign and Aussie, are being ruthlessly exploited.

socratease

socratease,
There are up to 10 students sharing one flat, but of course there will be exploitation of students if there is a shortage of accommodation for students. And what has created the shortage of accommodation for students?

The whole system of foreign students has been a giant rort mainly perpetrated by those in academia who are making some money out of it. The average Australian has gained nothing.

>>Keith,
I thought we entered into the Colombo plan to help Australian trade.

>>You know. We educate your young, and in return, you buy our produce.

>>>If so, then the plan has been a total disaster, as we now have a huge trade deficit.

Keith you are so right. Australia is totally engaged with India. What Vanna says is bs. The Colombo plan isn't we educate your young you buy our goods. Thats just dumb. We're not a solely manufacturung economy. Imports means cheap goods. Stuff like clothes, wine, food, cars, computers all that. Whats wrong with that?

No.Vanna isnt talking bs.Not at all.
Havent you guys confronted the evidence coming out of recent investigations?
There has been rorting of foreign students on a massive scale. Colleges failing to provide teachers and courses for which they have collected fees. Colleges suddenly going bankrupt after barely opening. And the government standing by watching idly by and handing out empty platitudes.

If you lot havent noticed anything your blindness and pseudo ignorance make you all as complicit indirectly.
Apart from anything else you show very little sympathy not to mention some outrage however little as if nothing has happened.
What a sad and dumb lot you are.

socratease

Two questions:
Does anyone feel uncomfortable driving past a carwash staffed entirely by Sikhs and patronised almost entirely by White people?
With regard to them "taking our jobs":
Does anyone really believe that the average Indian is a capable competitor in a White society?

Jay, you will be shocked down to your jocks if the Indian students were fortunate to have the jobs that whites get. They would be more than merely competitive. To start with they would be a hell of a lot more dependable and grateful and would be far more competent. There is a fear out there that the Aussie will be shown up. For starters the indian students will be far more educated and would have a far more mature response to life. If given a choice between the two I would much rathert give the Indian the job. That is just the problem and the white fear.

socratease

Thanks Socratease, you've answered one of my questions, Indians are not competitive and would need Affirmative Action programs to level the playing field IE they need to be "given" jobs rather than earn their place.It backs up what I know from having worked with them over many years, the five to one ratio, put five Indians to the task that one White man can accomplish alone and the job gets done eventually.
What does that say about us White people though?
As we know from history when White people,even a minority of White people as in South Africa have access to non White populations we always end up as rich,lazy fat cats and they stay poor and sick.
It's worked that way every time, it's why they don't want us anywhere near their countries.
Would you agree that such an exploitative system is bad for both sides?
If we have thousands of Indians here as a non citizen, non voting bloc of transient workers isn't that a threat to democracy as well?

Jay of Melbourne, you are a racist.
Are you from South Africa?
Or are you a Pom and a BNP party member to boot ?

You simply CANNOT be serious about five Indians doing the work of one white. Have you really looked around Australian cities at what passes for white workers?

socratease

Socratease You're only calling me a racist because I'm White.
You're saying that White people are inferior to Indians and that we need to replace White workers with non Whites.
Racial replacement and forced assimilation is genocide.
You say there is this RACE problem. You says thi RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

You say you are anti-racist. What you are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Since when has Australia been a white country? It was an Aboriginal country and we now share it with many people of many races.

I suspect that the sad little neo-nazi is compensating for some manifest inferiority which he/it has and is venting his frustrations on non-whites.

Jay of Melbourne would have to be a troll. I refuse to believe that any modern day person, of whatever ethnic extraction, could seriously believe that one white person (however that is defined) can do the job of 5 Indians (however that is defined too).

I think you should ignore him David.

Pur..lee..eese, guys. Jay does not speak for white men and women. He is succeeding only in spreading an odium over all whites. How he must secretly hate them. Idiocy knows no racial boundaries.

socratease

This isn't about Indians it's about White people, we're 8% of the world's population, Indians make up nearly a quarter,who cares what Indians want or need, leave it to them to figure out.
When an Indian comes here he's not a minority, he's still part of the Majority, we and the Indigenous people are the only real minorities in Australia.
The point is that Socratease is advocating replacing White workers with non White workers.Someone else indicated that White people were not worth employing.
That's hate, that's Genocide, every non White person that comes here diminishes the proportion AND the number of White children in this country, that's how demographics works.
Every job that goes to an Indian, every increase in house prices due to excessive immigration means that less White children are being born.
If I say I want to preserve my race, the White race you people automatically call me a Nazi Who Wants To Kill Six Million Jews.
Kill Whitey.That's the totality of your hateful point of view.

Jay,you sad old paranoid.How you love to play the victim role.
Get a life...of rationality and balance.Every line of your thread reeks of racism.It spreads like an odium.
No one suggested anyone replace a white worker with an indian or anyone else. Your are unnecessarily quivering in your boots.
If I was running a business I would be looking for the best man for the job, the highest qualified, the most relaible, the most creative and productive and the one most likely to be a team player. I wouldnt give the job to a white man just to preserve the white race,you stupid. I may give it to a white worker if he fitted the above criteria. Or I may give it to an Indian or African or Chinese who I thought was the mosrt suitable, the person who would do what I wanted so that the establishment or business would prosper.
YOur fear seems to be there are no whites who could compete or qualify and so could be eliminated.Thereby putting the race in some sort of jeopardy if the principle applied found only more suitable candidates were non-whites. And I should give a white worker a go by slipping him in somewhere, just because he was white..I WOULD NOT.NEVER.
This is a matter of pure conservative economics. This is pure capitalism.
You are living in a cruel commercial world,poor old jay and you're hating it and hurting like mad.
Sorry.
Go cry on someone else's neck.

socratease

Jay, I think you're in the wrong forum. This isn't stormfront.org.

I've just deleted a couple of posts and warned Jay of Melbourne. This is a discussion site, not an abuse site.

I've been called:
Nazi.
Paranoid.
Troll.
White Supremacist.
Inadequate.
Stupid.
Anti White.
Socratease has made racially insensitive statements toward me and White people in general and now my posts have been censored.
This is a thread about an anti immigration backlash in which Anti assimilation views are not permitted...huh?
So how about some discussion of the Racial aspects of Immigration?
My comments are regularly printed on other mainstream news sites and blogs.
I've not made comments which would violate any laws, I haven't racially vilified anyone, not even with the 5 to 1 observation.
I understand those of a liberal mindset don't like to be confronted with controversial views, that they find use of the words "Black" and "White" upsetting but in the battle against White genocide there are no safe zones and no taboos, it's a full spectrum brand of very practical interpersonal politics.
I'm happy to take questions on any aspect of the White Anti Genocide tendency, abuse doesn't bother me so here you have, in your Liberal minds at least a real live "Nazi", what would you like to know about Pro white views as they pertain to immigration?
Everything's on the table, so don't hold back.

Oh and by the way Stormfront, (a site which incidentally I don't contribute to) tolerates opposing views, it has a whole forum where any and all comers are accommodated.
I'd have to say that in contrast to the excellent contributions from some Asian and Black and Latin posters the response from those claiming to be White "Anti Racists" falls into a mind numbingly predictable, almost Pavlovian pattern seen on this board.
Race is real and it matters.
Australia never was and never will be an all White country but come on, we're 92% of the population, add another 3-4% Indigenous population and you guys start to seem rather silly, worrying more about the rights of a few hundred thousand largely transient people from the majority world.
Indians have a place to go back to if things don't work out here, my kids don't, that's why I put the rights of White babies above all other considerations.
This is the motto of White Racial Realists from Moscow, Melbourne and Los Angeles,from Madrid, Oslo and Athens.
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children"
Where's the hate in that?

Let's make one thing very clear, Majority World Immigrants are NOT to blame for White Genocide, I didn't say that at all.
People are ALLOWED to come here by White people, there is no illegal immigration problem in this country, everyone who comes in does so legally, if not at first contact then after processing.
There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant in australia.
We have a saying in my circle "Your enemy will always be White"
If we were opposing Majority Worlders we'd be able to come to a quick and amicable solution on forced assimilation of the minority Whites, The Majority worlders are reasonable people who believe in race and are. in my experience completely comfortable with identity politics.
What we have is a sort of civil conflict among White people, some of whom clearly don't want White people to exist and those such as myself
who value Diversity, Heritage and Tradition.
And to the above commenter I'd say, "So you disagree with your parent's choice, and their parents, you'd agree that they all made bad choices in choosing same Race partners"

So Jay of Melbourne, how do you determine who is "White" given that we all stem from the same ancestor? I don't think there is any "White" race - we are a polyglot.

Graham, polyglot isn't a bad description but the way Pro Whites use the term White Race is in exactly the same way as Indigenous or Black Africans use their descriptors, it's an inclusive term for those who choose it, no questions asked.
I don't even call myself an Australian, an Australian is an Indigenous person, I'm a Diaspora White living in a British military outpost, Smirk all you want but the reality is that my people didn't emigrate they conquered this country by military force, nation of Immigrants is humorous to me, the real immigrants only got to Australia because my people came here and stole it from someone else.

Most people can only trace their family tree back a few hundred years at most, and like me many Australian have mixed European heritage, I'm of Irish and Welsh background so the term White is a good fit
The term "White Race" is used as a unifier for a wide range of people of broadly European ancestry from the Nordic people to the Mediterranean.

It's as much a statement of a certain position as anything.
I would never ask an Aboriginal, for example if he was really Aboriginal and I'd expect the same respect regarding my identity.
Basically if someone looks White, acts White and is accepted as White by their peers they're White, no one has the right to tell them otherwise or to question them.
What we are not is Africans or Asians, that's obvious to anyone, whether or not we shared a common ancestry doesn't matter anymore.
Can I call myself Black and be accepted by Black people as such? Unlikely since I've got Fair hair and Blue eyes.
The real White Racial activist is solely concerned with the 14 words as listed above and our White Enemies, we're minority civil rights activists, not Nazis, you don't hear about us because we don't stomp around in Brownshirts or beat people up in the street,thus we're not really "sexy" enough to make the papers.

Firstly, why is this stuff still up here? And why is it getting worse.

Secondly, if the Indians can go back to India then why can't we white people go back to England?

Thirdly, this topic would likely be of interest to any Indian OLO users. Wouldn't an Indian find the comment, "I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem," to be threatening and intimidating?

Even with the use of less virulent language, it is pretty easy to see that this is racist hate speech. It basically infers that the non-whites are out to get the whites and are parasitic upon them. This isn't lawful speech in Australia. Given that any number of people, Australians and non-Australians, might read this I fail to see how this can be regarded as acceptable.

David, while I agree that this drivel is obviously racist hate speech, I don't agree that it should be censored. In allowing this stuff to stand, I think that OLO performs the useful function of reminding us that strongly racist elements still persist in our society.

I'm encouraged that most people here see this troll for what he is and have declined to engage with him. If we ignore him he'll either just go away or up the ante to the point where Graham can legitimately suspend him.

Hi CJ, I think the issue is that racist hate speech has a proven impact upon the people who read it in that it causes psychological harm to its victims. That is why we have laws in place to regulate racist hate speech.

I would agree that minor racist speech can be tolerated. But when its at this level, and it is clearly unlawful under the RDA and the ADA, then it shouldn't be here. And if we say nothing its almost like agreeing with it - because somebody will read it and be severely hurt by it - and we wont have done anything.

David, if I thought the posts were illegal I would have taken them down. Even if I were to take your point that it might be prima facie illegal, the Racial Discrimination Act allows for discussion of racist material, which is what we are doing.

If I were an Indian reading this thread I'd actually be reassured that the vast bulk of Australians is not racist.

But we should all be aware that there are people who are racist. These people deserve to be themselves treated with dignity, whatever you think of some of their views. When you try to suppress their ability to discuss their views you create space for the next round of Hansonism to grow.

With respect Graham, the posts may fail under Part IIA of the RDA.

Section 18C(1)(a) requires that the conduct be reasonably likely to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate others. In Creek v Cairns Post, Justice Keifel said that this related to serious and not mere slights. But in Creek the publication of two photos side by side, one showing a white couple at a house and the other showing an Aboriginal woman at a tribal event, was held to be offensive. Similarly, in McGlade v Lightfoot, Justice Carr held that comments of Senator Lightfoot that the Aborigines are primitives etc offended under the sub-section. Given the some of the remarks made here are more offensive I think it likely that the offensiveness threshold would be satisfied.

The causation requirement in s 18C(1)(b) requires that the conduct be done because of the victim’s race. Jay has been at pains to point out the difference between non-whites and white, plus the dangers of Indians taking the jobs of whites. Given the way in which similar material was dealt with by the Federal Court in Silberberg, Toben and McGlade, the causation requirement would likely be satisfied.

The section 18D defence protects speech made reasonably and in good faith. Given the discussion of these terms by Justice French in Bropho I doubt the defence applies. Reasonably requires an examination of context – here Jay is seeking to get support for a very extremist view. Good faith requires honesty of action and an attempt to minimize harm. Jay has spoken of a “final solution to the black problem.” He has made offensive remarks about Indians and spoken of an anti-white genocide. This isn’t the type of speech that is likely to be regarded as being in good faith. A defendant under 18D must prove both elements

On balance the posts are likely to fail under Part IIA. But that’s just my opinion.

In the Silberberg decision a web forum was found not to be liable under Part IIA whilst the person who posted the racist remarks was held to be liable. The problem was that the complainant could not prove causation under s 18C(1)(b) in relation to the forum’s failure to remove a racist posting. So OLO would have nothing to worry about. But really it’s a technicality. When s 18C(1)(b) was drafted in 1994 the internet wasn’t a big thing and web forums didn’t exist. So there wasn’t much thought given to secondary liability.

I don’t agree that suppressing hate speech will lead to another Hanson. Allowing it to exist will let it flourish and escalate. I support free speech too – but hate speech isn’t legitimate democratic expression – its just abuse and intimidation.

I think you have to consider the sentiments of both the people who have posted here as well as the people who haven’t posted here. I’m not entirely sure how an Indian would take comfort out of this thread given that the extremist views are still being disseminated

Thanks for your legal opinion David. I disagree. The thread has to be taken as a whole.

OK so I should, in David's opinion, go to jail for up to 14 years for insulting other White people.
Read my posts again VERY carefully, remembering that they appeared in sequence and I've already advised that they are tactics, part of a well rehearsed sequence to convey a particular point of view.
Read where I state categorically that Non White people are not my enemy.
Now I've stated also that I've worked extensively with Indians so I have, unlike you guys apparently, a pretty clear idea of how they might respond, given that they are normal people and not, in my view overly given to hysterical outbursts.
To the 5 to 1 quip I'd expect to receive a reply along the lines of
"Well it's lucky there's one billion of us then".
You guys are putting a whole series of layers and selective interpretations on my posts in order to shut me up because they offend YOUR sensibilities, any effect on others is pure speculation on your part.
I'm attacking you because I don't agree that assimilation is the best thing for White people and you guys can't cope with what I'm saying.

It's interesting that people would bring up One Nation in a past tense, they're still a federally registered party and active in all states bar Queensland and WA as far as I know.
Pauline wasn't saying what the majority of Australians wanted to hear
I've never voted One Nation the whole concept is just absurd and attracts the worst sort of ignorant bigot, Imagine how much worse things would be if she was still in parliament.
Nationalism always ends up with enemies in place of ideas, so said a famous Ukrainian poet.
Modern Australian Nationalism is exactly that, bereft of any real ideas.
Some of them talk about deporting non White people as if it's a real and viable prospect, the rest are part of the Pro Israel lobby and focus entirely on making the lives of Muslims as miserable as possible.
I'm trying to illustrate why the fear of "Hate" speech among White people is so overblown.
There's no group in this country that could capitalise on such sentiments, as much as we're led to believe that "Nazis" could come back at any minute (were they ever here?) the reality is far more mundane.

David Jennings, in his post of Thursday, 25 March 2010 at 9:47:43 AM, asks:

"... why is this stuff [the allegedly racist comments
of, presumably primarily, Jay of Melbourne] still up here?"

and a little later;

"Wouldn't an Indian find the comment, "I am talking
about the final solution to the BLACK problem," to be
threatening and intimidating?"

In answer I'd have to say that conceivably an Indian person could feel threatened and intimidated, if the quoted words were unable to be read within their context. Which is exactly where David Jennings is placing them, out of context! It seems David Jennings is incapable, or unwilling, of comprehending that JoM, in his post of Thursday, 18 March 2010 at 5:20:51 AM, is deprecating the very idea of there being any 'black problem' needing 'final solution'.


Jay of Melbourne's words were:

"What if I said there was this RACE problem
and this RACE problem would be solved only if
hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought
into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking
about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final
solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man
to notice this and what kind of psycho black man
wouldn't object to this?"



David Jennings goes on to say:

"..., it is pretty easy to see that this is racist
hate speech. It basically infers that the non-whites
are out to get the whites and are parasitic upon them."

No it isn't, and it doesn't.

David Jennings is merely ASSERTING that the comments of which he is critical contain such an inference. His next claim, that "This isn't lawful speech in Australia.", gives his real objective away. He wants to shut down the OLO debate on this article, one at least notionally about immigration levels, and he has tried playing the 'implied legal action' threat to do so.

He shouldn't be let get away with that.

I find myself in agreement with CJMorgan's call to not try to censor Jay of Melbourne, although not for the reasons he advances. Whether or not Jay of Melbourne is a troll, there are some illuminating perspectives contained within some of his posts. One of them was the observation, in his post of Thursday, 25 March 2010 at 9:48:47 PM, that:

"Pauline [Hanson] wasn't saying what
the majority of Australians wanted to hear.
I've never voted One Nation the whole concept is
just absurd and attracts the worst sort of ignorant bigot."

I found it particularly so given that GrahamY had also raised the ghost of One Nation in his post of Thursday, 25 March 2010 at 12:42:20 PM, with his remark in defence of his refusal to delete some of Jay of Melbourne's posts, that:

"When you try to suppress their ability to
discuss their views you create space for
the next round of Hansonism to grow."

I have long regarded the facilitation of the rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation as the example par excellence of the 'rednecking' of a debate, or political cause. In this particular case, the 'rednecking' of the political expression of a widespread sense of community unease at, and dissatisfaction with, perceived cultural directions in which Australia was being led. How interesting to see the alleged 'bete noir' of this thread say what he did about the (in all likelihood unwitting) principal actor in such a 'rednecking' drama.

What a threat must some of JoM's views be seen to offer those who insist on painting up debates on population or immigration as being covert racism. As I pointed out in another thread ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10137#164431 ) while attempting to explain the term 'rednecking', it is an activity most suited to being conducted in the MSM or national politics. It depends for its success on being able to suppress or drown out articulate and reasonable expressions of concern with bigotry, ego-tripping, and non-reporting. Perhaps that's why 'rednecking' doesn't work so well on OLO: little censorship.

It's important to note that there is no mainstream opposition to immigration and more particularly assimilation, there are people who appear to be dissenting voices but when you read the fine print they're either following a PC line or grandstanding for some other reason.
Bob Birrell's widely reported comments on Non White immigration being a threat to social cohesion will be decried as "Racist" but what's he really saying?
He's saying that rapid and unplanned population growth sourced from third world countries threatens the objective of assimilation by creating ethnic enclaves.
In White Australia we have a very well established tradition of integrating other cultures into our society but we have very little assimilation.
I'm actually proud of our record on peaceful integration, if there was a reason needed for White Pride our tolerance of others would be right up there.
People have been gulled into worrying about the rise of the "Right" but as I've said they're going nowhere fast, the Radical Left however, despite pushing an utterly absurd line of neo Marxist "No Races No Borders" Mumbo Jumbo go from strength to strength. The CPA and Socialist Alliance doubled their vote in the S.A elections to around 1%.
Fascism is as dead as a doornail for all the right reasons, Communism should be feared and hated to the same degree given it's killed five times as many people and the body count continues to this day, India for example is still fighting Naxalites.
Forced assimilation and Communists provoking racial tensions (FISA,Socialist Alternative, Van Rudd etc) are a far greater threat to our stability going forward.

For the sake of our future here in Australia we should control immigration to an absolute minimum allowing for families.

We must allow a time period for white Australians to get used to the Asian newcomers. We should encourage acceptance that can only come gradually for cultural and religious demands and needs. It's gone too far to demand that we turn them out to where they came from.

I have absolutely no objections to our African, Chinese, Pacific, New Zealand and Indian brethren because they dont seek to thrust their religious demands down our throats with threaty od death and destruction.
I am sorry if I seem to be discriminatory but I am reacting to the near past and contemporary events . We have stupidly allowed leaders of hate to enter with their disciples. They openl;y advocate the replacement of our way of life and our institutions with theirs. And they are supposed to be our guests.

Do I sound like I am a racist? Or a very concerned Aussie?

socratease

So Socratease.
Ethnic Enclaves.
Yes or No?
And don't fear Radicals they're WYSIWYG, moderates religious or otherwise are horrible creatures.
The job of a moderate is to sell out ideas and sell out their people.
Don't think that because a person is called "moderate" he is wishy-washy or harmless.
These are the coldest, nastiest people you will ever meet.
I despise moderates even more than I do our Self Hating Whites. Leftists say openly that they hate my race and they hate my country.

But Leftists stab you in the front.WYSIWYG.

Before we indulge this theory of 'rednecking' why don't we read what the Federal Court of Australia has had to say about comments like those that Jay has been posting. Then you can decide for yourself whether it is lawful or unlawful.

McGlade v Lightfoot:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/752.html
Toben v Jones:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1150.html
Silberberg v Builders Collective:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1512.html

Jay has put his speech out there and the inferences I've drawn are fairly reasonable. Thats the consequences of publishing speech - others are allowed to draw reasonable inferences from them. In this instance I think that on balance that Jay's comments go beyond a point that the law allows. The courts have made similar inferences in Silberberg and McGlade.

You'll note that the RDA is a civil liability scheme - not a criminal statute - so there's no question of 'jail time' (?!). I'm not suggesting that the debate on immigration should be shut down, rather that a post calling for a "final solution to the black problem" should be removed.

These are the laws of Australia and nobody is so special that they should be allowed to flout them. ... Lawyer Pride Worldwide!! ;-)

Forrest says:

"David Jennings goes on to say:

"..., it is pretty easy to see that this is racist
hate speech. It basically infers that the non-whites
are out to get the whites and are parasitic upon them."

No it isn't, and it doesn't."

Well then why does Jay say:

"....every non White person that comes here diminishes the proportion AND the number of White children in this country, that's how demographics works."
"Every job that goes to an Indian, every increase in house prices due to excessive immigration means that less White children are being born."

What inferences can we draw from that? How does positively describe the relationship between whites and non-whites?

What about:
"I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem"

What do you read from that? Does he regard the blacks as equal human beings or as a problem?

"Indians are not competitive and would need Affirmative Action programs to level the playing field IE they need to be "given" jobs rather than earn their place."
"put five Indians to the task that one White man can accomplish alone and the job gets done eventually."
"Does anyone feel uncomfortable driving past a carwash staffed entirely by Sikhs and patronised almost entirely by White people?
With regard to them "taking our jobs":
Does anyone really believe that the average Indian is a capable competitor in a White society?"

Are these not extremely racist remarks?

David, can we move on? We've looked at the issues. In the context of the thread a post, even if it is racist, if it is directed to discussing the matters which we are discussing, does not make the thread in breach of the act. The act allows for this sort of discussion in an academic context.

Further, you are not accurately interpreting at least some of what Jay is saying. Instead of characterising what he says as racist, some of which clearly is, address the substance and why his point of view is wrong.

You are essentially arguing about moderation, not about the matter which is the subject of the thread, so you posts are off-topic.

As the article's author, Robin Jeffrey, observes in its opening paragraph, 'racism' has now become a dirty word in Australia.

It seems to me that there are two senses in which the word 'racism' can be claimed to have 'dirty' connotations. The first is with respect to the actual practice of racism, exemplified by such things as disqualification for employment on the basis of physical appearance or country of origin, and it is the actual implementation of such racially-based discrimination that is the thing regarded as being 'dirty'. The second is with respect to what is widely perceived to be the taking of first resort to branding the Australian community at large, or more specifically that overwhelmingly major component of it that can be identified as 'white', or 'anglo', or of 'British origin', as being comprised of or containing a significant proportion of persons as having racist attitudes.

I think it is in the second sense that the author has claimed 'racism' as having become a dirty word in Australia. That seems borne out by the reference to the success of 'Vindaloo against Violence'.

It seems incredible to me that, in all of the publicity surrounding the targetting of Indian students with violence, the news that was initially kept from the Australian public [that a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians, rather than by persons from the 'white' Australian community] would not have been known to Indian diplomatic officials.

It further seems that thoroughly justified Indian diplomacy on behalf of some of its citizens [Indian students studying in Australia] has brought to light a dirty little bi-partisanly-kept Australian political secret, in the form of the linkage of participation in the study rort to the securing of permanent Australian residency status. That secret being that an over-blown Australian academic structure had been becoming increasingly sustained by a ripping-off (with the assistance of the migration industry) of the life-savings of aspirant Indian families.

Too many overpaid academics for the public payroll. The political bullet not bitten. The problem disguised.

Forrest Gumpp: << the news that was initially kept from the Australian public [that a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians, rather than by persons from the 'white' Australian community] >>

Are you sure about that, Forrest? In my reading of the media reportage of recent violence against Indians in Australia I'm only aware of a few cases where the perpetrators have been reliably identified as Indian. Whether these constitute a "very significant proportion" depends to some extent on perspective, I suppose.

Do you have any reliable references for your claim?

Incidentally, I agree about the education/training and residency scam. There's no way that participation by foreign students in paid education or training in Australia should have been linked with promises of permanent residency. The rort seems particularly egregious when the training involved is some kind of bogus 'hairdressing' or 'cooking' course.

Of course, it would have been better if this scam had come to light by other means than an apparent crime wave against Indian students in Australia.

Surely we have already discussed what Forrest states on another thread. There I pointed out that of the last 5 Indians killed in Australia, 4 were killed by fellow Indians themselves. I'd say that constitutes a significant proportion. The reason I choose to deal with deaths/murders is that usually the media idenitifies the perpetrators and the numbers are easy to deal with. Dealing with general violence is a whole different issue as there are literally thousands of incidents and the Police do not take information on a persons cultural background.
Anyway if we don't have the stats for general violence that's certainly no reason to assume they are commited by 'white' Australians. I'd want to see the evidence to support anyone stating the majority or even a significant proportion of the violence is conducted by white Australians. I've certainly never seen any reports to support that.

Here is the list I gave to support the statement that 4 of the 5 most recent Indians killedd in Australia were killed by fellow Indians.

A) In early Jan 2010 Nitin Garg (1) was stabbed to death. The killer has not yet been identified.

B) In early Jan 2010 Ranjodh Singh(2) was set alight whilst thought still to be alive. The killers were all indians, Harpreet Bullar, Harpreet Singh and Gnrpreet Singh.

C) In early Feb 2010 Navdeep Singh(3) and Kanwaljit Singh(4) were stabbed to death by an Indian student who was sharing the house with them. The killings were over $20.

D) Just the other day Gurshan Singh(5) was killed by an Indian student taxi driver.

If there are any murders that I have not listed then I apologize and would appreciate being corrected. However that would not change the overall position that a significant proportion of Indians killed in Australia have been killed by fellow Indians.

What ozzie should apologise for are his egregiously distorted statistics. He deliberately ignores any violent crime against Indians that isn't homicide, and provides no contextual timeframe.

If he's a medical doctor as he claims, he really ought to know better.

Forrest, that is the point.
Anti Racism means Anti White.
If we're talking about ending Racism in Australia we're talking about a final solution to the White problem
If we're talking about ending Racism in Africa we're talking about a final solution to the Black problem.
Only nobody on the Anti White side seriously believes in a Race problem in Africa outside the context of White Colonialism.
The article at the beginning of this thread proposes that White people and only White people need to be changed to end racism.
If only White people are held accountable for racism then the only way to stop racism is to get rid of White people, to stop them being White.
The quickest way to stop people being White, short of murdering them is to limit their birthrate and assimilate them with other races
If I told Africans that they were Racist and had to be intermarried with non Africans to end their Blackness they'd object to it.
Now maybe David can explain his position on Race instead of just attacking mine.
People like Mr Jennings usually use threats and intimidation to silence people who promote a Race Realist point of view, presumably they hold the view that Whites need to be eliminated.
As I said, I'm comfortable talking to people of other colours about racial issues because they believe in race and doing what's best for their tribe, which is a perfectly normal point of view.

Graham, I wasn’t challenging your decision on moderation. OLO is private property and I respect your right to moderate the website as you see fit. Though I do disagree on the suggestion that discussion on OLO is ‘academic’ under section 18D – even with some university funding OLO is a public discussion on a privately run website. It’s more like a news site.

But what I was doing was responding to Forrest’s posts and my response is that before criticizing any attempt to “shut down” the debate people should at least take the time to read the case law as it pertains to racist speech.

My suggestion is that whilst we are having a discussion on immigration and the issues between Australia and India, there are some general rules that should govern how that debate should take place. Those rules are binding, and I take one view on them but I can understand if you and others take another view.

That said, if Jay finds the very mention of laws relating to racist speech to be “intimidating” or at least an “attempt to intimidate”, how would non-white readers of this forum respond to the suggestion contained in Jay’s posts that their migration constitutes an “anti-white genocide” and that they are “inferior”?

Further, I don’t think that the use of words like “Black Problem” and “Final Solution” is accidental. Jay is clearly au fait with the language WW2 history and the references may well be deliberate.

How do we properly characterize the following passage? Harmless or deeply concerning?:

“Anti Racism means Anti White.
If we're talking about ending Racism in Australia we're talking about a final solution to the White problem
If we're talking about ending Racism in Africa we're talking about a final solution to the Black problem.”

For the record, I think that racism represents a moral and intellectual failure. No right-thinking and rational person would sensibly suggest that racism is a good thing. All human beings are equal and every human being has to be judged on their individual merits.

I often feel that those who espouse racism are expressing some resentment or compensating for personal weakness and are seeking refuge in a group identity whilst simultaneously trying to disparage another group. I think that this is cowardice not reason.

I understand that a debate on migration, culture and ethnicity might draw out a variety of responses. Some may be politely expressed whilst others may even be offensive. All of this can and should be tolerated if it bears a rational relationship to the actual debate.

But to suggest that non-white migration constitutes an anti-white genocide, that to be opposed to racism is to be against whites and that the only way racism could be cured is if entire groups did not exist, is surely a response that is out of all proportion to the actual debate to the extent that it borders on being extremely irrelevant.

Whilst there has been some racism on OLO this goes well beyond that. These ideas are not radical, they are deeply flawed and immoral.

Migration and culture raise serious and sensitive issues. But to blithely describe one group as good and another group as bad is clearly a fallacy. Moreover, for all the ‘cultural clashes’ multicultural societies tend to be more creative, dynamic and successful than mono-cultures. Change and renewal is a normal part of human life and there is no good reason why our society cannot be cohesively multi-racial. At any rate we live in a global world and we can also live in a global country.

David, my reading of what Jay is saying is that you will have racism wherever you have people from two clearly identified racial groups and the only way of ensuring there is no racism is to ensure there is only one racial group, in which case the characteristics of the larger racial group from the precursor groups will dominate.

He also seems to be saying that preoccupation with racism, and guilt about it, appears to only effect Europeans and that other racial groups don't worry even though they are as racist as Europeans.

David,
Again you add layers to my argument that are just not present at their original writing.
You are faced with a truth you cannot deal with, white genocide. Your answer is to say that those who disagree with you are Evil, in this case, Evil Racists. That tactic was used against people bringing up a legitimate point by the intellectually exhausted before Socrates was born.
It is cowardly and mindless.
I'm willing to take a gamble on whether my posts would upset a person of another race, in my experience I'd expect a polite but firm rebuttal or an enquiry as to my motives.If I did offend someone I do believe that I possess the intellectual and social skills to come to an understanding with the aggrieved party.
What I am 100% certain of whenever I engage in one of these online
discussions is that my views will upset my Self Hating White opponents, that's why I do it.
All my enemies are White.
The genocide is being perpetrated by by guilt ridden, self hating Whites who are brainwashed into thinking that they have no right to the fundamentals taken for granted by the other 92% of the world's population.
If I said to an African that the only way to live was to bring as many non Africans as possible to that continent,for no reason other than that I wanted to teach them something about tolerance and to stamp out some aspect of his race to which I objected, what would he say in return?

And with greatest of respect I think that reads into Jay's posts a degree of civility which his actual words lack and reads out some of the more worrying implications of his words.

Even if Jay's views are presented in the manner that you describe it is difficult to see how that would support a sensible discussion on immigration. It suggests a fundamental incompatibility between different groups of human beings, which is of course false, and as such it is not a useful, or even a valid starting point for this debate. To suggest that only Europeans are concerned with racism is both wrong and utterly simplistic.

Graham,
Thanks for responding, that sums up some of my views though I do believe it's possible for a multiracial society to function as long as no one is saying "thou shalt", but that's another discussion altogether.
As I noted in another thread the propensity for Caucasians to doubt their own right to exist is our Achilles heel,it's a racial trait that doesn't seem to appear naturally to any great extent in the other peoples.It was wrong of an educated,elitist group of White people to exploit the weaknesses of the Aboriginals, or the Maori or whomever, it's just as wrong for them to do it to other White people.
If there was no active and persistent promotion of genocide by racial assimilation of Whites I wouldn't be here, these points of view don't spring out of the ether.
As a member of the global White minority I find David's views, his self serving manipulation of my writing and attitude in general to be deeply, racially offensive and I object, as is my right and the right of every other person on the planet.

All that I have done is to respond to the remarks that you have actually made. You can’t have it both ways. You seem very happy with the way that Graham has greatly gentrified your remarks but you find “racially offensive” (?!) my rejection of the racism contained in your views.

If we look at what you actually said:

“All my enemies are White.
The genocide is being perpetrated by by guilt ridden, self hating Whites who are brainwashed into thinking that they have no right to the fundamentals taken for granted by the other 92% of the world's population.”

Nonsense. You have no actual proof that there is an anti-white genocide. Nor can you sensibly suggest that whites who support multiculturalism and immigration are “self-hating”, “guilt-ridden” or “brainwashed”. These are just meaningless assertions.

You also said:
“...every non White person that comes here diminishes the proportion AND the number of White children in this country, that's how demographics works.
Every job that goes to an Indian, every increase in house prices due to excessive immigration means that less White children are being born.”

I struggle to see how that can be interpreted in any way other than as racist. It suggests that non-white migration has a negative impact on the white population – that is what you are saying right? But how could non-white migration diminish the “number” of white children in Australia? How does an Indian having a job prevent white women giving birth?

I wouldn’t want to add layers of meaning to your words - though it is part and parcel of freedom of speech that other people are allowed to explore the merits and even legitimacy of your speech. You cannot sensibly be in favour of free speech when you are making a “radical” argument, but be opposed to it when others respond.

You also continue to use words that you should, at least by now, reasonably know have other meanings, such as “Final Solution” and “Black Problem”, but you object to any inferences being read into that. Again that’s wanting to have it both ways

What you see is what you get.
Africa for the Africans.
Asia for the Asians.
White countries for EVERYBODY.
Nobody is suggesting that Africans will be better off if millions of non Africans are moved to their countries to assimilate and intermarry with them.
Nobody is suggesting that Japanese will be better off if millions of Japanese are moved to Japan to assimilate and intermarry with them.
When I point out that White countries and only White communities are expected to take in millions of Non White people, assimilate and intermarry with them I'm accuse of being a Nazi Who Wants To Kill Six Million Jews.
Either you're for the promotion of assimilation and intermarriage of White people and ONLY White people with non White people or you're against it.
For the dissolution of the White race by assimilation or against it.
If there's no difference between the races Why are White people and only White people expected to assimilate with non White Races?
Why do we have Whole government departments with budgets and media advertising space devoted to this promoting racial assimilation?

As for different races being incompatible.
To support the Third world pouring into White countries and only White countries one would have to believe that every time one race is transplanted into the living space of another that IN EVERY CASE the resulting interaction is beneficial to the newcomers and has no effect at all on the target population.
If I take a group of 5 kids with severe behavioural problems and put them with 20 of the highest achievers in the school will the disturbed kids turn into A students and will the other students be utterly unaffected by that program?
Old Time Wisdom: "A few bad apples spoil the whole barrel", I'm sure we could find a similar sentiment expressed in every language on Earth.

"To support the Third world pouring into White countries ....the resulting interaction is beneficial to the newcomers and has no effect at all on the target population.
If I take a group of 5 kids with severe behavioural problems and put them with 20 of the highest achievers in the school will the disturbed kids turn into A students and will the other students be utterly unaffected by that program?"

I assume that this is another un-subtle dig at the impact on non-white immigration on Australia. Have you seen the demographic composition of most of our selective schools recently? Which groups tend to be well represented amongst the high academic achievers?

We've seen Asian (both North Asian and South Asian) students perform oustandingly well in economics, commerce, science, engineering and medicine. There are quite a number of excellent Asian lawyers and law students. I'm seeing increasing numbers of young African students at university as well - and doing well!

I have no idea what you mean by this quote:

"Nobody is suggesting that Japanese will be better off if millions of Japanese are moved to Japan to assimilate and intermarry with them."

As for this remark:

"Either you're for the promotion of assimilation and intermarriage of White people and ONLY White people with non White people or you're against it."

Why? I support the right of every human being to choose their own partner regardless of race, religion or ... gender.

Then there is this pearler:

"Why do we have Whole government departments with budgets and media advertising space devoted to this promoting racial assimilation?"

This just isn't true. Can you produce one government document to support this "racial assimilation" argument? There is no evidence to support this and nothing at all that backs up your assertion of an "anti-white genocide'.

Then there is this:

""A few bad apples spoil the whole barrel", I'm sure we could find a similar sentiment expressed in every language on Earth."

At last we are in complete agreement. OLO was an ok place until you started spouting this "anti-white genocide" nonsense

What you mean is,my writing is what YOU CHOOSE TO CALL RACISM.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know yet you're addressing me as if I'm IGNUNT.
Anti-White Whites will routinely be shocked by my posts, “How can I be anti-White? I’m White.”

My reply is, “It’s called treason, ya big silly, it happens all the time.”
All I'm offering is clear thinking on forbidden topics, by talking about Race I'm opening up a Forbidden Zone that most White people never get to see into.
The problem is that a forbidden zone is a fortress against thought, manned by those who represent Militant Ignorance. When the telescope was invented by Western Society the old cosmology was doomed. Today Political Correctness, which was built on the assumptions that animals have no borders and no war, and that all mental problems are Responses to environmental factors are dead and rotting while standing there backed by the forces of Militant Ignorance.

Each year more and more obvious nonsense has to be defended to defend the Forbidden Zone. While the rest of society marches on, that Forbidden Zone Wall gets higher and higher, pours down hot oil on the attackers until it finally collapses.

Those of us who spend out time talking precisely about the Forbidden Zone of our society have a lot to offer people. Those who refuse to read our stuff because it is Forbidden, whether you call Forbidden Heresy or Hate, miss it all.

Truly fascinating stuff. As I said earlier in the thread, OLO performs a very useful function in reminding us that strongly racist elements still persist in our society.

Mind you, Jay's posts are so bizarre that I'm not entirely convinced that they're not an elaborate wind-up.

Either way, it's quite entertaining :)

Since the beginning of colonisation and the following history of Australia there has been backlashes to migrations to this country, even though there has always been a felt need for immigrants to this country to develop it and without which this country would have remained as the backwaters of history.
When the Irish came, feelings ran high against them. Italians and other east Europeans fared no better.. The early governments and industrialists and employers felt the need of increased immigration from other countrties for the simple reason that there were not enough migrants from the UK and there was a dire need for the population to be increased. The new migrants suffered a backlash also. There was a fear hat the newly arrived would get all their jobs. The usual insults and pejorative epithets were wildly thrown about. There were race riots. Nothing new. The story of backlash is renewed with each pattern of immigration from other countries and other races. Today there seems to be a backlash against the Indians before which there was a backlash against the Chinese and the Pacific Islanders.
The important thing to remember out of this sordid characteristic of migration histories that not everyone felt embittered, the vast moral majorities didnt,and each time eventually the backlash subsided. The country breathed easy again and saw the benefits accruing to make Australia a richer and better and stronger country. The insecure and socially retarded were those who were ill-equipped to compete with the newly arrived and there was fear and jealousy as they tried to make the newcomers as uncomfortable and fearful as possible to stop the flow.
Today its the turn of Afghan and Sri Lankan migrants. And so it goes. it is inherent as the birth pains of the nation.

socratease

CJ. In your opinion I'm a Racist.
This discussion shows that a strong attachment to Race exists within the community despite it being a forbidden zone.
STILL, despite all the attempts to eradicate such sentiments!
We're not supposed to talk about RACE unless we make it absolutely clear that "I'm not being Racist but..."
It's kind of a tell,that Race is the only thing we're not really supposed to talk about,but racism is in the headlines every day.
Race is real and it matters.
Socratease.
Nation of Immigrants?
You make it all sound so benign.
White people took this country by military force and damn near wiped out the people who were already here, technically hostilities are still ongoing
That's the only reason the Chinese, the Indians and the Polynesians got to see it!
Nation of Immigrants! That's funny.
If you believe that then you must believe that we emigrated to Iraq in 2003.
Nation of Immigrants! How sweet!
If there was a possibility of things turning out any other way we'd be welcomed with flowers and a band everywhere we settled, as it is nobody else wants us anywhere near their living spaces, they're dying in droves to keep us out in Afghanistan.
The majority world understand us even if were taught not to ask about our own true nature.
Race is real to them, and it matters.

David, I'm happy to discuss IQ And The Wealth Of Nations with you but bear in mind that IQ only works within a certain range.
People who use IQ to argue their point on Race usually end up with Egg on their face.

In response to CJ Morgan's post of Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 1:35:14 PM, and with apologies for delay due to an interruption of the Telstra landline service through which I access OLO, I would have to say that ozzie's post of Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 9:51:21 PM ( See also: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10024&page=0 ) explains the sourcing of my claims most appropriately. Obviously my focus was on the murders as the most extreme outworking of violence that in its doubtless more extensive, but also less fully reported, aspects, may not be anywhere nearly authoritatively verifiable as to the perpetrators so far as the Australian public is concerned.

What can be expected is that the full extent of official reports as to both the murders and other, and perhaps less well-defined, expressions of violence to Indian students would have been available to Indian diplomatic officials. That the Indian government recognised this violence as ultimately resulting from an ill-advised Australian migration policy, not from latent racism within the Australian community, is borne witness to by the recent change to that policy doubtless as the result of Indian diplomatic representations.

India made the Australian government face up to its responsibility for a racket in which the grant of permanent residency was an automatic outcome of Indian citizens undertaking vocational courses in Australia, as a consequence of which many Indian citizens both in Australia and back in India were able to be ripped off by shonky elements of a likely Indo-Australian immigration industry promoting shonky training courses. Only the Australian government could put a stop to this racket. Indian diplomacy made sure that it did.



Relations between India and Australia were not roiled at all.



Various interests within Australia pushing high and easy immigration may, however, have been partially foiled by an Australian community anti-immigration backlash of which the Indian government may well tacitly, if not openly, approve.

I suggest the attempt to make this a debate about racism may be an attempt to disguise the immigration policy direction in which India has wisely helped point Australia.

Forrest Gumpp: << ...news that was initially kept from the Australian public [that a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians, rather than by persons from the 'white' Australian community]... >>

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 28 March 2010 10:37:22 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150#166604

Forrest Gumpp: << Obviously my focus was on the murders as the most extreme outworking of violence that in its doubtless more extensive, but also less fully reported, aspects, may not be anywhere nearly authoritatively verifiable as to the perpetrators so far as the Australian public is concerned. >>

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:05:30 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150#166965

Nice waffle, Forrest, but it still doesn't wash. What you said was that information that "a very significant proportion of the violence was actually perpetrated by other Indians" had been "kept from" the Australian public. Now, when challenged to provide some basis for this claim, you amend it to say that you actually meant "murders", rather than lesser crimes of "violence" against Indians, because the perpetrators of the very few murders are "authoritatively verifiable", while you really don't have a clue who is responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes against Indians in Australia.

I put it to you that your initial comment was a deliberate dog-whistle which was intended to convey the impression that a "very significant" proportion of violence against Indians in Australia is perpetrated by other Indians.

Good point CJ.

I found the following article in a dastardly left-wing publication known as "The Australian" it even lends some support to the idea that some of the attacks may have racist undertones:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/survey-shows-racism-rampant/story-e6frgcjx-1225847654617

The article states in part:

"In New Delhi in early March, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith revealed Australian police had made 70 arrests in the past 12 months for crimes where the victim was of Indian ethnicity.

A small number of the assaults "had either racial or racist overtones", Mr Smith said.

Police did not keep statistics on the basis of nationality, which had made analysis of the assaults difficult, he said.

However, the Australian Institute of Criminology, a listed participant at the workshop, had been asked to do an exhaustive statistical analysis of the assaults, Mr Smith said.

"The AIC is currently conducting ongoing research into the victimisation of overseas students in Australia," an AIC spokeswoman confirmed yesterday."

Focusing on only the murders as Ozzie and Forrest do, obscures the other assaults which are quite relevant. But even then, the perpetrators of these crimes might not be motivated by racism - they might just be thugs. Moreover, a few racist thugs do not speak for all Australians. Further, our immigration policy won't be dictated to us by violent thugs, white or otherwise

I think CJ may be right –Jay is having a lend. But I’m more amused by the use of certain marketing techniques like the repetition of certain phrases. It’s at the point of being a kind of a self-parody of an extremist.

How else can we make sense of this:
“All I'm offering is clear thinking on forbidden topics, by talking about Race I'm opening up a Forbidden Zone that most White people never get to see into.”

The Forbidden Zone? It sounds like a program you might see on the Science Fiction channel on Foxtel. I note that the Forbidden Zone is also an evidence free zone. You have not answered a single question I’ve asked.

Evidence is real and it matters.

Then there is this offering:

“Today Political Correctness, which was built on the assumptions that animals have no borders and no war, and that all mental problems are Responses to environmental factors are dead and rotting while standing there backed by the forces of Militant Ignorance.”

When I was younger we had another word for “Political Correctness” – we called it manners.

I don’t recall anybody saying that animals didn’t have borders. And as for that bit about animals and war, have you seen that program called “The Dark Side of Chimps” on the National Geographic channel as well? The rest of the above quote made no sense.

Logic is real and it matters.

Speaking of logic:
“We're not supposed to talk about RACE unless ...absolutely clear that "I'm not being Racist but..."
It's kind of a tell,that Race is the only thing we're not really supposed to talk about,but racism is in the headlines every day.”

Who said we can’t talk about race? Just don’t be obnoxious.
At any rate if we’re not meant to talk about race then why is it being discussed in the papers every day?

Reason is real and it matters.

But the final word should go to Jay:

“Nation of Immigrants! How sweet!”

Yes it is – all of us from diverse backgrounds working together to forge a common future

"David, I'm happy to discuss IQ And The Wealth Of Nations with you"

Sorry Jay, but I wasn't offering to discuss Adam Smith with you. I really don't want to hear your thoughts on race and economics.

"but bear in mind that IQ only works within a certain range."

Yes - that is a good point. Well illustrated.

"People who use IQ to argue their point on Race usually end up with Egg on their face."

I'll tell Herrnstein and Murray. It might be a bit late.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/12/race-intelligence-iq-science

At any rate my point wasn't that those students were doing well because of their ethnicity. But rather that they were migrant kids doing a fantastic job. Thats probably because their parents have encouraged them to work hard and they've decided themselves to make the most of their talent. Its a heart-warming story of human achievement. Its a pity you only saw their race,

David, I'm not here to argue with you.
You're not telling me anything I shouldn't already know but you're treating me like I'm an idiot.
All the smart kids usually leave small backwater towns as soon as they're old enough, they don't want to be left with all the dummies, they want something better so they leave. The thing is that whenever someone needs help they naturally turn to the smart people they grew up with and trust for assistance. It's a bummer if they're not there, under some circumstances the dummies could starve or start attacking each other.
I guess you could say all the book smarts in the world are no good to anyone if you can't be around for the people who NEED you sitting at their table giving them your wisdom and moderating those crazy Dummy impulses.
You're funny! Political correctness equals good manners. Gold!
By all accounts Oliver Cromwell had good Manners but he didn't take too kindly to people who disagreed with his opinions.
Political Correctness is not only LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.
That's why people who practice it are so outraged when people point out that it's based on a belief in the supernatural.
It's just that it's so funny to people like me to be confronted with a person who names all of humanity their God AND their Witness at the same time.
That's funny!

Jay of Melbourne: << CJ. In your opinion I'm a Racist. >>

You got that right, but I wouldn't necessarily use a capital R - I'm not sure whether it's an ideology or a pathology, in your case.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, and I'm really trying not to treat you like an idiot.

However, after that last post:

<< By all accounts Oliver Cromwell had good Manners but he didn't take too kindly to people who disagreed with his opinions.
Political Correctness is not only LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.
That's why people who practice it are so outraged when people point out that it's based on a belief in the supernatural.
It's just that it's so funny to people like me to be confronted with a person who names all of humanity their God AND their Witness at the same time.
That's funny! >>

...I'm even more inclined to the view that you're having a lend of us. Either way, feel free to share more of your perspectives. Your worldview is fascinating, not to mention quite unique - except perhaps for the mysterious "circle" in which you move and to which you've referred.

I'd like to hear more about that :)

CJ incorrectly stated

"What ozzie should apologise for are his egregiously distorted statistics. He deliberately ignores any violent crime against Indians that isn't homicide, and provides no contextual timeframe.

If he's a medical doctor as he claims, he really ought to know better."

Well I do know better. Better than you CJ. You try to mislead people.

The figures I have given are in no way distorted. Homicides are simply a subset of violent crimes. May studies in different areas never deal with the collection of all data, but deal with a subset of the total. The figures for all violent crimes are not available as I stated in the original post and thus I am using the only figures available. Part of the reason the figures are not available is because a few years ago there was a study into ethnicity and crime in australia( by the AIC) sponsored by the department of Multiculturalism. The study found there was not enough evidence to determine relationships because ethnicity was not collected by the Police forces in different states. One of the obvious recommendations in the report was to begin collecting ethnicity of the accused. However, remarkably this was in the end NOT adopted as the department of Multiculturalism thought this could be too senstive and could lead to divisions in society. So bascially the Politically correct leftists thought we should not be able to find out if migrants are more involved in crime or not. Instead of giving us the truth we are basically not allowed to know. What kind of reasoning is this? In what other sectors of society do we apply such a backward policy? Do we ban Royal Commissions to eliminate the chance someone if found to be at fault? Do we not have enquiries into crashes in case someone is found at fault? Think about it? where else do we have such a policy deliberately trying to obscure the truth.

However from the little stats we have as mentioned above, an incredible 80% of the most recent murders of Indians are by indians themselves. I do not suggest that 80 % of violent crime on Indians is by Indians, but that is not what Forrest suggested. I believe he simply stated a "significant proportion" which would be quite believable if 80% of murders are by indians. If you in some way want to dispute this, feel free to give me many recent examples of the many Indians recently killed in Australia by white Anglos. I once asked the academic David Jennings to do this as he disputed the figures. He came up with no response.
You saying these figures are distorted is basically the same as saying NSW figures for crime bear no relationship to Australian figures. Or you could complain if I gave you all violent crime figures by saying that I have not given the figures for all the violent crimes that are indeed not reported.
Instead if you feel the figures are not representative I will ask you to give me 4 (four) examples of indians recently killed in Australia by whites. That really should be very easy for you if what you say is true.
CJ I notice you rarely give responses based on facts. Most are just critical of the other poster. On this occasion I will just ask you to give me the above 4 examples. After all more than 70% of the population is white Anglo, so surely most of the murders of Indians are by these same Anglo's.
Remember only 4 examples please, no more.

ozzie: << You try to mislead people. >>

Oh come on ozzie. It's not me that's trying to infer a racist and entirely unsubstantiated parameter from a tiny and extreme subset of the population. Don't they teach epidemiology and biometrics in medical degrees any more?

As for the rest of your rant, I don't suppose you'd like to provide even a shred of evidence for at least some part of it? It reads like something you might have cut and pasted from Andrew Bolt or Stormfront.

CJ
I await your 4 examples of indians recently killed in Australia by whites.
thanks

Sure ozzie. I'll start looking for them just as soon as you provide some evidence that a "significant proportion" of the violent crimes against Indians in Australia are perpetrated by other Indians. So far you've provided evidence for 4 or 5 out of the hundreds of reported crimes that have given rise to the current controversy.

In my opinion, that's not a significant proportion.

I won't hold my breath.

Andrew Bolt or Stormfront?
Andrew Bolt and the other respectable conservatives are more eager than YOU to point out that anyone who even talks about Race is a Nazi Who Wants To Kill Six Million Jews.
When people like Ozzie talk about aspects of the genocide against the White race,such as hate speech insinuating White Racist Attacks without definitive proof, The Leftists scream RACIST! and Andrew Bolt, Paul Sheehan and Alan Jones fight each other to lead the lynch mob.
John Faine and Neil Mitchell don't have to lift a finger, the respectable conservatives do their attacking for them.
Andrew Bolt is probably the Head Honcho in the Racial Assimilationist movement for all I know, to read his articles you'd think so, he puts One Nation to shame in the "I don't care who comes here as long as they assimilate stakes".
The media are just in the business of recruiting and pimping Whores.
George Bernard Shaw once asked a woman he didn’t like whether she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She said, “Yes.”
Then he said, “I’ll give you ten shillings to go to bed with me.”
She is supposed to have answered, “What do you think I am?”
He replied, “We’ve established what you are. Now we’re discussing price.”
When Nick Griffin went on Question Time we found out that the price of his principles and his loyalty was merely the offer of airtime (and therefore respectability) itself.
When Bill O'Reilly has offered Ann Coulter a chance to sell out she has rebuffed him every time,he actually said to her the other day when she was defending her beliefs "Well we gave you every chance" (to sell out your principles) next time he'll probably just scream at her and cut her mic.
There won't be a time after that.

J of M
you recently debunked my view that much of Australia has been built by waves of migration from earliest times. How then do you account for the presence of tens of thousands of Irish, Italians, east mediterranean peoples, Chinese, malays, Pacific islanders, Indians and all the other races. The presence of ethnic groups such as we have in Australia can only have come about by conquest which isnt the case or by peaceful means by the invitation or consent of successive Australian governments. The other absurd explanations are that they were brought by interstellar aliens or are all illegal immigrants who are openly living here and doing business and helping to build the country as the rest of us watch helplessly on.

[Deleted for abuse]

socratease

Socratease, they don't lock people up for being crazy anymore.
Australia was captured by a White military expedition.
They sent further military and paramilitary forces out in a declared war to eradicate or concentrate the people who were here before.
When Howard sent the troops into the NT setlements to restore order it was a military intervention to subdue the people and impose White values, just like in Timor Leste or the Solomon Islands.
We live in a British military outpost in the south seas.
The only reason any of the other races got to see this country is because White people came and occupied it with our gold and weapons.
Ask Sheikh Hilaly or Mukesh Haikerwal if they feel responsible for invading and killing the first Australians.
When Aboriginals are looking for redress for past wrongs they don't go to the Indian high commission, they come looking for Whitey!
Nation of Immigrants is just pure comedy! Like "Diversity is Strength"
Nation of immigrants is probably the most insensitive thing you could say to an Indigenous person, it's what White people say when they don't want to talk about race, when they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
Race is real and it matters to Aboriginals.
Race is real and it SHOULD matter to Whites.

Jay’s posts are now a bit harder to rebut because they are making less and less sense. They also don’t relate to immigration very much!

He says:
“When Howard sent the troops into the NT setlements to restore order it was a military intervention to subdue the people and impose White values, just like in Timor Leste or the Solomon Islands.”

Can you point to any evidence that actually backs that up? Did Howard say that?

Here is this quote:

“When people like Ozzie talk about aspects of the genocide against the White race,such as hate speech insinuating White Racist Attacks without definitive proof, The Leftists scream RACIST! and Andrew Bolt, Paul Sheehan and Alan Jones fight each other to lead the lynch mob.”

What does this particular excerpt even mean? I’m getting an image of pandemonium but there’s very little coherency in this quote or the argument itself.

More confusing is this:

“Political Correctness is not only LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.
That's why people who practice it are so outraged when people point out that it's based on a belief in the supernatural.”

Whoever said that political correctness is a religion? Who named “humanity” their God? The simply point was to be tactful in dealing with sensitive matters.

In fact it was hard to make sense of much of your reply post. It seemed to lurch from a Lord of the Flies scenario to Oliver Cromwell and then onto this new religion. All of which was interesting, but none of which pertained directly to immigration.

So here is the simple argument: All human beings are individuals and deserve to be judged on their merits. Our country can integrate and assimilate a larger number of people from a variety of backgrounds. No one person and no one race owns the country. Our country is a shared land and shared society. So a little tolerance, compassion and understanding will go a long way to establishing and maintaining a successful multicultural country.

“However from the little stats we have as mentioned above, an incredible 80% of the most recent murders of Indians are by indians themselves.”

Except that five homicides is too small a number from which to draw the conclusion that the majority of violence against Indians is perpetrated by other Indians.

In effect Ozzie is guilty of exactly the same sin that he accuse CJ of doing. Ozzie has failed to account for the non-homicide violence because it simply doesn’t fit his argument. Moreover, he has ignored it altogether.

“If you in some way want to dispute this, feel free to give me many recent examples of the many Indians recently killed in Australia by white Anglos. I once asked the academic David Jennings to do this as he disputed the figures. He came up with no response.”

I think you’re mistaking ignoring you for an inability to actually respond to your argument. I think its pretty clear that until the Australian Institute of Criminology delivers its report on violence against Indians that we won’t know if you are correct or not. But at any rate you are trying to base a very large conclusion on slender evidence – so to speak.

More interestingly, what if the majority of violence against Indians was not by white Australians? Would that not suggest an acceptance of Indians by an overwhelming number of Anglo-Australians and the absence of any backlash? I suspect that it might!

That said, I think that in another thread I came up with the best response to Ozzie’s arguments when I uncovered a series of choice quotes from Ozzie demonstrating a clear anti-Indian agenda.

To paraphrase Jay, credibility is real and it matters….

Well you're right about one thing David.
I'm not here to argue with you.
My posts don't make any sense at all after you've edited them made them conform to whatever "Ism" your practicng today. Leftism? Humanism? Individualism? Egalitarianism? Anti Racism?
Leftism failed in the starting blocks, but as Quentin Crisp once said "If at first you don't succeed then failure is probably your style"

The people all over the world, the truly tolerant ones who talk about race as a reality, the ones already in the forbidden zone have a lot to offer, it's a shame you'll never let yourself understand it.

All race realism requires is that people THINK, it doesn't need Tomes to be written and laws passed in its favour... and "credibility", you only get credibility and "respectability" when you sell out your beliefs and your Volk

Edit this to fit your views, Over and out :)

Blackfella Whitefella Doesn't matter What ya' colour As long as you A true fella

As long as you A real fella All the people Of different races Around the world

In different places Doesn't matter What your name is We've got to have lots of

changes We need more brothers If we're to make it We need more sisters If we're

to save it Are you the one who's gonna stand up and be counted?

Jay it seems you are a protected species who is allowed to live and write unchecked and run rampant with your sarcasm and aggressive posts but the more you speak the more readers of OLO can see what you are. I have to be gentle with you.

Back to your sarcastic response to what I called "waves" of migrants from other countries who have built Australia to what it is today.You denied that any credit could be given to these migrants for their contributions in nation building. You denied that it didnt happen that way that they did build Australia to its present level of development.
So, then, try to tell us from where the Irish, Chinese, Dutch, Portuguese, Germans, Croats and Serbs, Indians, Islanders, New Zealanders and Africans and others came from. If they didnt come as colonists they must have taken turns in conquering the country, wave after wave. If it wasnt by conquest they may have been dropped by alien crafts. I cannot imagine any other possible solution.
I am tempted to assess your mental state judging from your posts.But I will let others make their own judgements. I'm being watched.

socratease