One reason why I quickly grew out of the trendy lefty mindset was because of the clear double standards of people like Clara O'loughlin.

Clara justifies her own prejudice by claiming that the word "prejudice" means "a judgement based upon ignorance instead of reason." But "prejudice" literaly means "to pre judge', and everybody does that.

Clara therefore has a problem. She wishes to justify her own prejudice, while claiming that her opponents prejudice is bad. She claims that her prejudice is not prejudice, because it is based upon reason and not ignorance. But such a claim is entirely subjective. Her opponents could say exactly the same thing and say that their prejudice was based upon reason, while her's was based upon ignorance.

Let get one thing straight. Everybody prejudges. It is an everyday occurrence. Every one of us makes judgements about other people. The simple act of locking your car is indicative of how much you trust people in your local environment.

The problem with evangelical finger wagging trendies like Clara, is that they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they think that the moral values that they demand that everybody else must abide do not apply to them. It is not that Clara deliberately violates her own moral code, it is just that she has never considered that she is violating them at all. Psychologists call this phenomenon "cognitive dissonance."

When confronted by her own prejudice, she rationalises around the problem, redefining "prejudice" to suit her ideology.

Sorry Clara. Your prejudice against Jews is exactly the same a my prejudice against Muslims. The only difference being, that I am smart enough to know what I am doing is normal behaviour, while you are trying to promote an ideology based upon a moral absolute that is so extreme that you can not conform to it yourself.

continued

Let’s argue like gentlemen and not impugn each other’s character. I assume you are not a liar and are earnestly trying to present a case. I said your statement was false, but I think that is just because you are really not aware of the history or have unconsciously shaped it to support your contention. However, you wrote, “And you slyly omitted all mention of the Basques. Jews and Arabs differ in language, culture and religion.” The adverb, slyly, implies dishonesty on my part. I resent that and will withdraw from this discussion if there is any recurrence of that language.

The current boundaries of Spain except for most of its border with Portugal are like the boundaries of France determined by nature. The Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the Pyrenees make the boundaries. The Basques want independence. The wounds of the Civil War in Spain still exist even though the conflict has ended. The Basques were on the losing side. After the war Franco wreaked his revenge on the Basques. There were mass slaughters, and the culture has been suppressed. One way of treating the Basque hostility is to allow them to separate. That would be the way of self-determination. However, the Basques would still be where they are and their proximity could fire up more conflict. The same will be true in Israel with two states next to each other. Basques are also in southeastern France. I am not aware of any movement for independence of the French Basques or any disorder in France due to Basque activity. The reason is simple. The Basques in France have been treated differently from the Basques in Spain so they don’t wish to separate.

This reinforces my position. Nations should make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, sex, gender identification and any other matter which should not be related to citizenship. Treat Basques fairly, and the separatist movement will probably disappear. A similar movement in French Quebec disappeared when the Canadian government addressed Quebec complaints.

LEGO,

"Sorry Clara. Your prejudice against Jews is exactly the same a my prejudice against Muslims."

Where's the evidence for Clara O'Loughlin's alleged prejudices, all you've presented so far are assertions.

Gee mac. I just spent 349 words explaining that everybody prejudges and that Clara can't claim that her prejudgements are any different to anybody else's prejudgements. Do you have English comprehension problems? Please re read my post and try to ask an intelligent question next time.

LEGO,

So you can't provide any evidence, OK.

Davef, I withdraw “slyly”. Whilst I thought the omission of Basques from your examples was glaring, I should not have implied it was intentional.

You admit that the right of self-determination is a fundamental human right in international law, but not in your mind. Ok, you’re entitled to your opinion. I am content to be the one on the side of international legal norms on this question.

You think the norms regarding self-determination are a source of conflict and oppression. I think, to the contrary, that the denial of self-determination is a far more frequent and serious source of oppression and conflict.

Most national communities aspire to both sovereign Statehood and dense inter-State economic and other ties. This was the formula recommended in the UN partition plan in 1947 for a Jewish State and an Arab State.

Although you point to a handful of examples of minority national communities being treated decently, I suspect that even they would prefer political separation and independence. Far more often such communities are treated appallingly. The Tibetans (who, unlike the Palestinians, actually once had a State of their own) are perhaps the most tragic example. The South Sudanese, East Timorese and Kurds would have no time at all for your argument.

Of course no state should make distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, etc. But a State has no obligation to bestow the benefits of citizenship on the people of another State, or on people who renounce all allegiance to it. Most Palestinians don’t want to live in a Jewish-majority State and vice versa.

There is nothing unusual or perverse about this. No nation willingly makes its future, and observance of its rights, dependent on the good graces of another. For you to expect any nation to do so for the sake of the latest manifestation of abstract universalist idealism is a triumph of conceptual elegance over relevance.

I think we have exhausted the argument. This will be my last post. To atone for my sin in using “slyly”, I will give you the last word.