Hi Rhys.

Of course it is racist, Rhys. That's because I am a racist. I used to be a an anti racist, but I realised that all of the people who claimed that they were anti racist, were very racist towards white people. You can say that the Americans are arrogant warmongers, but you can't say that the Muslims hate the Jews. You can say that the Australian people should be ashamed of themselves and sign a "sorry book" for their treatment of aborigines, but you can't make negative generalisations about protected minorities, especially aborigines.

It is a clear double standard. One of my favourite pastimes is pointing out the racist statements from the "anti racists" on OLO who are completely unaware that their negative generalisations about the groups of people that they despise is just as racist as the people they criticise. It absolutely stuns them. It has never occurred to them that declaring that groups of people can not be criticised, can cut both ways.

And thank you for pointing out that Freedom of Speech regarding social issues does not exist in multicultural Australia. Just speak the truth and the Inquisitors from the motley collection of Human Rights organisations in Australia will show you the instruments of torture to shut you up. Of course, there was once a time when trendy lefties like yourself used to get all apoplectic at any idea about political censorship. But it's nice to see that now that you have some power, that you have become the very people that you once used to fight against.

Racism is rising in western societies because of people like you, Rhys Jones. You ignored the fact that multiculturalism is just like Socialism, how many times does it have to fail before "intelligent" people like yourself figure out that it is a bad idea? People like yourself failed to create a utopian class blind society in the past, and now you are going to fail to create a race blind society. You forgot that to most people, their ethnic and cultural identity is very important to them.

. . .[Continued]

Dr Weizfeld notes: “A national home for the Jewish people is not a Nation-State. Even under the provisions of the Partition Plan Resolution 181 of the UN GA, the self-proclaimed State of Israel violates the boundaries set forth under the resolution. As for the recognition of the Palestine State, now acknowledged, if the Palestine State is not to be considered legal then the State of Israel would also have to be considered illegal, under international law. Furthermore what is called ‘Eretz-Israel’ is not a State in itself but quite specifically a Land, upon which there has always been multiple Nations co-existing.”

EJ: That means Jews, if they thought they were “a people”, could under the mandate be free to live in Palestine and regard it as their “national home” alongside all other communities living in the territory. The extra grab, above that allocated in the Mandate, was in persuading the foreigners in the UN General Assembly to agree to two states.

But it’s not two states but one state overlooking Palestinian Bantustans. The settlement map [4] is an eye-opener – foreign settlements cover the face of Palestine like a disease.

[4] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_v3EfebS4ZXU/TMbosXQXPQI/AAAAAAAAACY/C2ZAtPcK0jw/s320/westbanksettlements.gif (each black dot is an Israeli settlement on stolen land).

Hi Haldual.

I am an Australian, Haldual. It is part of my Australian culture that we shorten two and three syllable nouns by adding an "O" or an "ie" as a suffix. If you don't like it, then you are living in the wrong country.

Since you are ignorant of Australian culture, I feel it is my duty to enlighten you. Aussies say "surfie", "truckie", and bikie" Or "milko", "Garbo" or "abo". Got it now?

Try this for size. "My best friend Jacko slipped on some lino and got on compo. Then he became a wino, and now he is a dero.

I know that strine can be confusing for foreigners, but it is our country, and we will speak anyway we damn well please.

Dear David Singer,

You wrote: "What about telling us how you personally feel about Carr's Lakemba mosque declaration fitting the Prime Minister and the Labor Party with a policy that has no binding legal decision to substantiate it?"

The above statement illustrates the reason many people distrust lawyers.

I have read the Fourth Geneva Convention. The intent of the convention seemed to me to ban settlements on territory occupied by war. One can hire a lawyer to defend a client regardless of what that client has done or how guilty that client is. That is because our system assumes that a client is innocent until proven guilty.

However, you are not in court. The settlements have not been found guilty of violating law. You have managed to get legal opinions which justify the settlements. I don't know the motives of the lawyers who justify the settlements, but I do know that one can get lawyers to argue any side of any question.

Rather than question whether the settlements are moral, right, justified or observe the spirit of the law you point out that the question has not been adjudicated.

As far as I can see whether or not the question has been adjudicated the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention since they are a development that the convention was written to prevent. I feel in this case the policy of the Labor Party is to support the clear intent of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There is no reason that a law has to be adjudicated before one observes it. When a law has been passed it is in force whether or not there has been a trial or court case concerning that law.

You have cited lawyers who justify the violation. One can always do that. The government of Israel does not want to observe the Fourth Geneva Convention. You are defending the violation because Israel has not yet been pulled into court.

I know the convention bans settlements in occupied territory because that's what the convention states.

Dear David Singer,

You wrote: "What about telling us how you personally feel about Carr's Lakemba mosque declaration fitting the Prime Minister and the Labor Party with a policy that has no binding legal decision to substantiate it?"

To sum up my previous lengthy post. Laws go into force when they are passed not when they are adjudicated. I personally feel fine are Carr's declaration.

Dear LEGO,
How refreshing to have someone freely admit to their racism. However, just because you are a racist, doesn't make me one.
You also mistake me for a "trendy lefty". I can assure you I am not. I am no great fan of multiculturalism. I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech, even very offensive speech. I believe the only speech that should be banned is speech that directly incites violence. But if we do have anti hate speech laws then they need to apply equally, not selectively depending on who is currently in or out of favour with the general public. There appears to be a double standard whereby one can make obscene slanderous generalizations about Muslims with impunity, but make similar claims about Jews and you may well end up in jail.