C J Morgan, "it's one of Cornflower's standard rhetorical ploys to try and steer discussions off on tangents where she can engage in ill-informed or outright mendacious ad hominem attacks on others."

What rot and others can judge for themselves. This is what I said:

"..I was replying to Cheryl who quoted some Malaysian friends who were critical of Australian policy specifically in relation to Tampa. Go back to the context, there is a clear implication that Malaysia's policy and ethics were superior to Australia's which was and is damned nonsense and needed to be outed as such."

This is what CJ said later:

"Cheryl - I don't think Malaysia is a very good example of the humane and equitable treatment of asylum seekers. Even the appalling Tampa incident wasn't as bad as the treatment meted out to asylum seekers by the Malaysian government - which operates by virtue of a blatantly racist constitution."

After reading my comment, Cheryl gave further explanation and fair enough that is how she feels.

CJ, there is no need to bend it to pay out on me or anyone else. Lose the grudges and enjoy life, passion in argument is welcome, but no-one here should be playing for sheep stations.

David Jennings

A ? indicates a question. Not a statement nor an expression of an opinion.

Of course you're not too proud to admit error and not mirred in the blight of intractability shared by the bitter and hateful old...
With your open mind you will see how my generation has changed the outlook of Australia over the last thirty years.

Look at your grandparents attitudes. Assess whether they are different to yours. If they are different then try to assess how the change occurred. Then assess what the future of Australia is ... for each preceeding generation teaches the next. If they are really smart they will understand their own shortcomings and ensure their children do not suffer them.

That is a key element in understanding how western culture has survived and thrived. It's adaptability. It might surprise you Indigenous culture has the same great strength.

Nazem's Islam limits his ability to make choices and change those things that are abhorrent, for his religion is a way of life ... without choice and adaptability. He cannot choose just parts of Islam.

In western culture individuality and choice is paramount. Not so in Islam. Explore this aspect and understand that Nazeem cannot life live as both a westerner and a Muslim. It's impossible.

One basic tenet of westernism derives from Christ. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

That is reflected in our legal system. Check out the legal concept of 'clean hands'. The best way to understand it is tht if you seek a judgement in our courts you must appear with 'clean hands'. Say Nazeem wanted to sue me for discrimination well he would have to be prepared to show that he wasn't also discriminatory.

Another adaptation is the old adage 'people in glasshouses ...'

You see these are the sorts of things that make us Australian. It's part of our great egalitarinism. Now assess whether Nazeem shares those types of basic tenets, which do enrich our lives. Challenge him to embrace those tenets because of their basic goodness.

His responnse would enlighten you greatly.

I guess keith's latest bigoted offering is more properly described as Islamophobic rather than racist, although he did give the game away when he linked "Indians and Muslims" in his first effort. Now he not only knows what Nazeem Hussain thinks about women - despite the fact that this is not mentioned in the article - but he also knows how Hussain would respond if challenged about Islam.

Keith also imagines that I feel "guilt" about my "hatred of others". Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but I neither feel guilty nor do I hate anybody. Your hatefulness, on the other hand, is evident in almost everything you post at OLO.

I see that Cornflower's still off on her tangent, without having posted anything at all that pertains to Hussain's article. Do you have anything to contribute to the debate about the article, or are you going to persist in your usual trick of diverting the discussion off topic? You do it in just about every thread in which you participate - maybe you're unaware of it.

David Jennings - thanks for the kind words. I do try and be polite and thoughtful in my posts here, but I confess that I'm occasionally less than polite towards trolls and persistent haters.

CJ Morgan

You are one of the reasons I have not given up on OLO entirely. While illness plagues me from time to time (to the point that I cancelled my last moniker and one has to create a new one - resurrection not supported by Graham Young), you are among the most honest and consistent posters here.

The salient point made by Hussain:

<<< When the Hey Hey sketch made international news the only people given space in the Australian media to discuss whether blackface was offensive or not were white people. >>>

Is again reflected here on OLO - vanilla posters - myself included.

When he wrote:

<<< When it comes to conversations about issues concerning women, men in our community grab the microphone. >>>

While I am always interested in the male perspective - I would prefer to hear more from women about women - for example listening to the likes of Abbott rabbit on about women's sexuality is not what I want from the Liberal Party - its women remain remarkably silent.

Hussain is quite correct that Australian television does not reflect Australian reality. Recently, in hospital, my anaesthetist was Indian, my surgeon Vietnamese, the nursing staff were in a variety of colours, all were wonderful.

Looking forward to checking out "Fear of a Brown Planet Returns" this year in Melbourne.

Thank you

CJ,

Are you back from hell already? Devil reject you did she?

Ever wonder why I don't bother debating you?

It's simple I never argue with fools.

Severin,

I too have seen the huge numbers of races involved on the hospital system. It's great. As usual no doubt it's the attraction of the advanced nature of another western science leading the world that encourages and enables their desire to practice in the west. Eh?

I bet the avowed anti-westerners and self-loathers here choke on the implications of that comment?

Don't these blokes realise that Western Culture is something of which to be proud. Especially of it's ability to accept, intergrate and develop the best of the differences of so many cultures. That's caused it's strength, growth and persistence.

But the self-loathers in their narrow minded ways see that as a put down of others and not a highlighting of the majesty of Westernism.

Oh whatever would the self-loathers do if their pathetic little worrys and needs weren't able to be catered for. I've met their sad sorry little type in many places in Australia. Usually they are the first to make a grab for the benefits of westernism all the while slandering and disavowing it's greatness.

Now watch as they go straight for highlighting the few little bits of misery it sometimes creates. Watch as they never assess a balance. They won't do that because they know in their heart of hearts any balance would be heavily skewed toward the betterments westernism fosters.

They really do wallow in an abject poverty all of their own making. And of course their only real response to positivity is to try to drag everybody down to their levels of gutter residence.

Keith, your posts show you to be an unpleasant person. For the record, you are wrong on the anti-discrimination laws. Nazeem could sue you for racial vilification and he wouldn't have to prove anything about his own views on culture, women etc.