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?