The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Human Rights and Equal Opportunity....again.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity....again.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Er, Boazy - if you're going to continually refer approvingly to the BNP website, it's hardly surprising that reasonable people might surmise that you're "lurching towards fascism".

I think that the fact you whinge so much about enforceable human rights is further evidence of that lurch. Who's worried about the assertion of human rights except those who want to limit them?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 18 June 2010 10:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS... are a marxist socialist overlay of discrimation and oppression against majorities (mainly whites)!"

Please name just ONE predominantly white society where the white majority is somehow oppressed by a non-white minority.

Better still, a predominantly white/any coloured society that doesn't have an oppressed or disadvantaged minority of any kind.

And as for that endless collection of vague evils you generically call socialism, I suppose you've never been to a public school, hospital, library or driven on a public road or collected a pension or government payment of any kind?

Fascism is no solution to whatever is bothering you either.

Better up the dosage on whatever medication you're on.

I've never seen anybody so addicted to being outraged by anything and everything at the same time.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 19 June 2010 1:32:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelly
it's now 6.27 am and that fox rabbit thing was almost too much :) Almost cost me my milo.. but very well put.

The thing is..the analogy has a few weaknesses.

a) It assumes "white" Aussies are 'foxes' just waiting for a chance to eat the migrant or non white rabbit.
b) It assumes that rabbits have no desire to become more 'foxlike' :)

I think, that if a rabbit knows the nature of a fox.. it would do what it could to embrace 'fox' culture to avoid being seen as "one of dem wabbits."

But limiting the discussion to humans. Rather than just exacerbating 'difference' by taking the legal stick on the whites approach, would it not be better to take the 'emhasize unity, participation and citizenship' approach ? Rather than rewarding 'maintainance of traditional culture' (did you see the list of groups who stood out by name in an earlier post (the Lotto) ? http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk/results.asp please have a peek.
Just think "Does this kind of thing actually promote unity or..create suspicion and resentment"? Or even "can it be USED by certain interests to promote disunity and resentment?"

The common sense approach is very clear.... treat all groups equally.
"that" is my gripe... they arn't.

There is this strange notion that only minorities are treated unfairly.. so..punish the majority be default.

Wobbles.. white societies ARE being 'oppressed' by the law and also by academia. Did you actually see that now 'whites' are an object of scientific/academic 'study' ? "Critical Whiteness studies".

This ties back to 'Abolish the white race as a social construct' (Ignatiev/Acrawsa)

I, being 'white' don't take kindly to people seeking to treat me as some kind of object for academic marxist study which has a goal of removing any 'power structure' which I might by my color be a part of.
It assumes that such 'power structures' are inherently evil. They arn't. In fact...by and large they are not even conscious of 'race'.

CJ... you are on 'timeout'..goto your corner and sit!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Saturday, 19 June 2010 6:39:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sorry to suzyonline

I teased your feminist hormones and you forgot to read the gravamen of my learned post, so I'll try again for you but DO pay attention this time.

Well such a star chamber has already been created [outside the Constitution] by the CSA in their self created COAT process [ie their Change of Assessment Team process], which "grew another leg" as RICAT [Registrar Initiated Change of Assessment] where CSA allows themselves to snoop on payer bank accounts or whatever and then apply their process [which operates outside of Rules of Evidence] to the payer, with no comeback at all, or in fact no recourse to a proper court [despite what High Court said in Brandy about such processes being illegal].

So IMHO such a star chamber is doubly bad because of the "power to initiate" and the actual process. As the High Court said in the Lemah Meat case, it would love to initiate a suitable case for the court to argue that there IS a Privacy Tort [so someone PLEASE give us a vehicle]. Of course no one ever has or will so govt departments get away with gross abuse of the Privacy Act simply by pasting their "Privacy Policy" on their web site.

There is no such thing as a Privacy Policy, you simply obey the law.

So if any one is to Initiate action let it start in the High Court or at least a Chapter III court under Constitution and not just another quango.
Posted by Divorce Doctor, Saturday, 19 June 2010 9:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued, for suzy

I took the OP post at face value, ie a very serious violation OF our "human rights" BY a quango supposedly set up to adjudicate on complaints by persons BY application to their tribunal ie NOT also as a policeman, [reds under the bed it has been called] who actually INITIATES the "complaint".

As we see the thread got taken by the "usual suspects" on a fox and rabbit chase, but at least there is hope YOU might actually think, and maybe come out with some ideas.

You see people over thousands of years have actually gone to war to protect/put in place "systems" of human rights, and in layman terms we call it "the right to one's day in court" [with formal rules of evidence]. As Kirby J put it when family court counselling tried to do what is seen here: [see Harrington & Lowe]

"Depart from those pre-conditions and what is done can not stand
for it is forbidden by the Constitution"
Posted by Divorce Doctor, Saturday, 19 June 2010 9:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have a very odd perception of my response to your ramblings, Boaz.

>>...that was of the standard of the now totally discredited "Islamophobia/fear hate loathing" rubbish you always trot out after lifting not a single keystroke to verify information provided.. quite contrary to the IMMENSE amount of discovery and research you did to debunk the BNP claim...<<

Of course I look at the "information provided".

Which, in the context you allude to here, is invariably some quote from some dude about some verses in some ancient scripture or other. And as I have tried to explain to you on occasions too numerous to mention, I have absolutely no time for those opinions, nor for the scriptures they refer to, whatever their source.

And you cannot "verify" someone's opinion, Boaz. You can only agree with it or disagree with it.

But the part I continually object to, just in case it had escaped your notice, is not the quote, nor the scripture, nor the source of the scripture. It is the way that you wilfully employ this material to further your anti-Muslim cause.

As to the "IMMENSE amount of discovery and research you did to debunk the BNP claim", it took two clicks and less than five minutes.

Which is of course what you fail to do. Every time.

In fact, do you ever look behind the words you write? Or do you just expect us all to nod approvingly at the headlines?

>>If you look closely at where..and the demographics.. the voting trends.. etc.. it might reveal a slightly different piccy than the one your sand trowel managed to uncover.<<

Notice the key weasel-word, Boaz?

"might"

Of course it "might".

Pigs "might" fly.

If only they had wings, etc.

But why did YOU not do that research, before you went to print. And why do you continually object, when I do it for you?

Here's my suggestion.

Before you next get on your high horse about the simple facts I dig up following your next BNP-booster "observation" - YOU do the fact-checking.

Novel, I know. But it might work.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 19 June 2010 11:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy