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 > Article Comments > Why the academic boycott of Israel is not anti-Semitic > Comments

Why the academic boycott of Israel is not anti-Semitic : Comments

By Ciara O'Loughlin, published 15/8/2013

Lynch is accused of being anti-Semitic, prejudiced and of associating with a movement that supposedly aims at the destruction of Israel. Is there any truth in these claims?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
This author clearly confuses criticism of those critique Israel's policies with antisemitism. The Shurat HaDin court case is not accusing Lynch of antisemitism. Rather, they are using the Human Rights Commissions standards for all people: All that they argue is that it is "unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." Ciara - why do you label this claim as antisemitism?

By the way, a case for antisemitism could be argued, in that Lynch often focuses exclusively on Israel. Holding up the Jewish people to critiques and standards not demanded for others is consistent with antisemitism. But in this case, Human Rights standards are being quoted.
Posted by Bryan Kings, Thursday, 15 August 2013 10:22:19 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
A concise summary of both the ethical and political issues involved, although the author seems to have taken a somewhat charitable view of the motives of the boycott's critics.

"Reactions to the announcement earlier this month that an Israeli civil rights group has launched legal action in the Australian Human Rights Commission against Professor Jake Lynch of the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies have revealed a gross misunderstanding as to the meaning of anti-Semitism, the nature of the boycott movement, or both"

Yes, however there is also a third possibility, that the pro-Israel critics of the boycott movement are using accusations of "anti-semitism" as a cynical means of silencing dissent, accusations of "Islamophobia" are used in much the same way.

I'd say that Desmond Tutu is a well qualified critic of oppressive regimes, many other South African politicians have also commented on the similarity between apartheid SA and contemporary Israel, some have judged the regime even more sinister. Accusations of anti-semitism are nothing more than attempts to divert the debate from the real issue.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 15 August 2013 10:32:30 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
It would be unfair to call it antisemitic if there were academic boycotts toward all countries that maintain oppressive systems. Indonesia with its oppression and occupation of Irian Jaya, Russia with its recent anti-gay legislation, Saudi Arabia with its lack of religious freedom and many other countries are oppressive, and none of them as far as I know with the exception of Israel are subjected to an academic boycott. I think it is impossible to have a state that is both Jewish and democratic. I think any country which has the paradigm of a favoured religion or ethnicity cannot be democratic. A democratic state must make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation and ethnicity. However, to single out Israel, the only Jewish state, and to ignore Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Marxist or other states that also discriminate on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation or ethnicity sure smells like Jew hatred to me.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 15 August 2013 10:35:34 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
Good article.
David f says "It would be unfair to call it antisemitic if there were academic boycotts toward all countries that maintain oppressive systems."
This is a pretty silly argument. It would be impossible for any one organisation to focus on all the serious issues faced in the world. If they were to do so they would lose all focus and impact.
Was the boycott of the apartheid South African regime racist because it did not also boycott all the other oppressive regimes in the world?
Many people are more concerned about Israel than about other oppressive regimes because Israel claims to be a "liberal democracy" and "the only democracy in the Middle East". They put themselves in the same group as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK etc. As such their behaviour reflects badly on ourselves.
We all know that Saudi Arabia is more repressive (though not actually occupying anyone elses land) but they never claimed to be a liberal democracy, and as such their behaviour has no reflection on us.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 15 August 2013 12:04:14 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
Dear Rhys Jones,

Of course you are right. Israel claims to be a liberal democracy and does not live up to the standards of a liberal democracy. One focuses on the wrongs of a particular government because it may make a difference. That is why the boycott of South Africa for its apartheid went on. The boycott of its products hurts a country's economy and apparently was a factor in getting rid of apartheid. However, attacking the areas which promote change will mitigate against change. In the case of Israel or any other country in which there is a degree of academic freedom boycotting academy will attack an area in which one finds much criticism of Israeli activity. Many of Israel's products such as weapons systems and surveillance technology are inimical to human justice and freedom. They will probably not be boycotted. However, a part of Israel that can product constructive change is boycotted. Makes no sense, and merely encourages Israel to draw the wagons together.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 15 August 2013 12:39:48 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
DavidF, Israel doesn't have wagons! It has F-16s and nukes, lots of them.

It also is driven by a deranged notion that some god or other has chosen its people to be his or her children.

Israel, along with the U.S., should be BDS-ed out of existence. If that happened, world tensions would decline by 50%!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 15 August 2013 1:27:57 PM
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
david f,

"Makes no sense, and merely encourages Israel to draw the wagons together"

Exactly the same argument was used in defence of the SA apartheid regime, the Afrikaners would never have abandoned their repugnant system without outside pressure and neither will the Zionists. The difference of course, is that the SA apartheid regime had very few friends and Israel has the USA, the Americans seem blind to the predatory nature of their protégée.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 15 August 2013 2:00:42 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
"Israel, along with the U.S., should be BDS-ed out of existence."

Hmmm but is there a BDS of the US? None that I've heard of. Presumably that doesn't stop you from living up to your word and boycotting all US products, including entertainment, and technologies developed by the US military, e.g. the internet...oh wait...

"They put themselves in the same group as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK etc. As such their behaviour reflects badly on ourselves."

Oh really? Is this the same Australia that perpetuates a discriminatory and racist Intervention program in the Northern Territory, much closer in nature to Apartheid than any of Israel's practices towards Israeli and Palestinian Arabs? Presumably you are not refusing to pay your taxes to this racist regime, and Professor Lynch is happy to receive ARC grant money from it also.

Not to mention Australia's, NZ's, Canada's and the UK's bloody legacy and ongoing degradation of the rights of Indigenous people.

FFS sort your own nonsense out in your glass house before throwing stones at Israel.

Official breaches of human rights, and even more so the death of innocent civilians, are abhorrent and inexcusable, and Israel, just like every nation state on earth, is guilty of these charges. The difference is, the amount of criticism Israel garners, including the only ongoing globally-organised boycott regime, is disproportionate to its wrongdoings in the extreme. While millions have died in the DRC, and while more civilian Arabs have died in less than a year of civil war in Syria than in the entire 100+ year Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine and Israel, Israel is the only country being boycotted. Come on guys, just grow a pair and admit why you support it eh?

Why is Israel singled out? Earlier commenters were spot on - this is highly selective boycotting, and what's more it is self-delusional and hypocritical. And at its core it is about one thing: its supporters just don't like Jews very much. Just because there's the added element that they don't have the guts to admit it to themselves, doesn't make the anti-semitism any less real.
Posted by speegster, Thursday, 15 August 2013 5:38:44 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
Speegster, more irrelevance and propaganda. Last time I looked all adult aboriginals and Maori have the vote. This is something of a contrast to the 3-4 million Palestinians who live under military occupation. You may find it convenient to compare Israel to the likes of Syria to show their lack of brutality, but this means little to anyone who supports justice and fairness. One thing is for sure, the constant accusations of "Jew hater" at anyone who points out Israeli crimes will do nothing to convince people that Israel is in the right. I do not hate Jews. I don't even know any. But I do hate people who accuse me of racism in order to justify the crimes of the powerful over the weak.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 15 August 2013 6:54:46 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
There is one simple adage in this whole subject that does not receive enough attention.

This is the adage that: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

It was on this basis that Australia, in 1941, allied herself to Soviet Russia, whose communist government was the most murderous and oppressive in the world except for the Nazis.

This was because Hitler had attacked Russia, and the above adage applied.

In the current world there are terrorist groups constantly attacking Israel. They have often expressed the desire to attack Australia, with some success in Bali, but fortunately little else.

Let us not be deceived. These groups despise the Australian way of life and if it were in their power would destroy us at once.

These groups are the enemies of Israel. For all the faults in Israel, the Israelis share common enemies with Australia.

It therefore follows that in the current situation in the Middle East, Israel is an ally of Australia.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 15 August 2013 8:02:03 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
"Last time I looked all adult aboriginals and Maori have the vote. This is something of a contrast to the 3-4 million Palestinians who live under military occupation."

Oh dear, that was embarrassing. I'm afraid your argument is woefully and risibly misguided. Have you ever been to the region? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Like most Aussies on this issue, I'm pretty sure you don't.

Palestinians live in a separate, sovereign UN Observer State, where they participate in elections; in the West Bank, they are ruled by Fatah, in Gaza by Hamas. Here's the cabinet website (how's your Arabic)?

http://www.palestinecabinet.gov.ps/

100,000 Palestinian Arabs are treated free of charge in Israeli hospitals every year. Israeli Arabs have full voting rights, full employment rights, and serve in the upper echelons of the Israeli judiciary, government and army.

Ask any Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander person if they think there's equality in Australia. Better yet, ask one of the ones in jail, making up 27% of the total prisoner population, but only 2.5% of the population overall:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/5087123B0CCE48C1CA257B3C000DC7CE?opendocument

How about some average life expectancy stats:

Australia - 81.44
Israel - 80.69
Israeli Arabs - 78.5
Palestinian Territories - 72.17
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - 70.05

Sources: http://www.who.int/topics/global_burden_of_disease/en/; http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/121822;
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jan+2012~Main+Features~Life+expectancy~3110

Shall I go on? Why do you focus on an issue you have absolutely nothing to do with on the other side of the world, when there’s so much wrong here at home? I think I know…

Your taxes fund the racist and discriminatory Australian government: how dare you accuse a nation you know nothing about, regarding a situation…you know nothing about? When you’ve got absolutely no legs to stand on. Hypocrite.
Posted by speegster, Thursday, 15 August 2013 8:21:38 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
I think there are many arguments 'for' and 'against' in this case.

Unfortunately 'Anti-Semitic' has become a too oft used word.

Having a grudge with Israel or current Zionistic policy does not automatically make one anti-Semitic.

People have forgotten a little of history.

The CIA have been subverting governments world-wide since the late 1940s.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union (Cold war) the CIA and US foreign policy has been to attract and divide using the new enemy, i.e. Muslims, and yes the blow-back has been enormous. If you were to focus on the Caucasus region and its strategic importance globally, you would understand why the US and Israel are happy to stir the pot, to their own end of course.

Additionally, if you were to ask a surviving Jew who was alive prior to 1947 I am sure you would be stunned by the revelation that Jews and Arabs, whether Palestinian or otherwise, somehow managed to live in peace with each other prior to the intervention, and in particular the ingress of thousands of east European Jews, those who today and their progeny who hold office and control the military in Israel.

Perhaps then, you might understand the broader impact 'Israel' in its current guise works with the US in particular to destabilise foreign relations across the globe.

Unfortunately anyone speaking against these rancid policies and the on-going ethnic issues in the ME and further afield, will be called Anti-Semitic, despite the misinterpretation/representation of the words and the meaning behind those words.

Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 15 August 2013 8:30:25 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
I once marginally opposed the boycott of South African universities on the ground that it disrupted contact with academics with whom we ought to close ranks. Tutu’s letter and the South African BDS explanation hyperlinked in by Clara O’Loughlin blew those hesitations away both for back then and for now. The role of the Israeli universities as yapping curs running at the heels of the Israeli state is shown starkly in Professor Shlomo Sand’s accounts of the campaigning role of the university history departments on behalf of the Zionist state in the narrative of his book on the invention of the Jewish people. It is unfortunate that BDS sentences to exclusion decent academics engaged in respectable research areas such as chemistry, and it can be hoped that they will understand the need.

In other threads the Israeli spokesman David Singer likes to cite legal documents adopted by foreign colonialists and UN as validating Israel’s existence, but today I checked them and it turns out the Zionists are lying about them. They do no such thing. See the sorry details at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15351 .

As for the academic BDS, it is not antisemitic or even anti-Israeli except in that it seeks changes in Israel’s behaviour. Hopefully in the future boycotts will lead to dismantlement of the racist state itself.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Thursday, 15 August 2013 8:46:55 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
I have changed my mind and agree with those who support the boycott.
Posted by david f, Friday, 16 August 2013 4:05:18 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
I happen to agree that legal action is not the appropriate way to combat BDS. But Ms O'loughlin is naive about the ultimate aims of BDS. The BDS aim of a "right of return" to the territory of Israel, not only by the small number of Palestinian refugees from 1948 who are still living but also their millions of descendants ad infinitum into the future, is indeed aimed at 'the destruction of Israel' by means other than conventional warfare. Ms O'Loughlin should do the research and familiarise herself with the statement s of BDS founders like Omar Barghouti.

Speaking at Carleton University in Ottawa in 2010, while he was a PhD student at Tel Aviv University, Barghouti had this to say in his “personal capacity”.
“I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution… If the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution. You would have a Palestine next to a Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel.” See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZLk6Ei9-U.

In another interview at the same link, Barghouti stated: “If the occupation ends, would that end our call for BDS? No it wouldn’t.”

He wrote an even more self-damning piece in Electronic Intifada on 31 May 2009:

"...people fighting for refugee rights like I am, know that you cannot reconcile the right of return for refugees with a two state solution. That is the big white elephant in the room and people are ignoring it ¬ a return for refugees would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state." Here’s the link:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/boycotts-work-interview-omar-barghouti/826
Posted by BSDetector, Friday, 16 August 2013 10:15:26 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 BSDetector,

You wrote: "In another interview at the same link, Barghouti stated: “If the occupation ends, would that end our call for BDS? No it wouldn’t.”"

It would not end Barghouti's call for BDS, but it would end that of other people who are supporting it because they want an end to the occupation and not an end to Israel. I have changed my mind about the motivation for BDS as antisemitic because I realise that people support it for different motives. Some are antisemitic, but many others are not.

Some support it only because they want an end to the occupation. If and when the occupation is ended they will probably stop supporting it. Others will continue, but they will be less effective. They may even find former allies opposing them.
Posted by david f, Friday, 16 August 2013 10:32:03 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 David f
I accept that the subjective motivations of BDS supporters vary, as you say. My point was about the objective effect of the published goals of the international BDS movement, in particular the so-called "right of return" of "refugees" including the descendants of refugees ad infinitum into the future. The destruction of Israel as the State of the Jewish people is inherent in this goal, whether or not supporters of the BDS movement realise this or support it. Many BDS supporters are well intentioned people who are unaware of the real history and are being used. For the full history of BDS see:
http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/bds_campaign.pdf
Posted by BSDetector, Friday, 16 August 2013 10:55:13 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 BSDetector,

The BDS movement has horrible antecedents. It arose out of a racist, Jew-hating conference.

However, in evaluating a concept we have to consider how it has developed and what it is now rather than its origins. Movements change. Even words change in meaning. At one time, the word, girl, meant a child of either sex.

In its origins the Zionist movement was most worthy. Jews suffered from civil disabilities and persecution. The vision of Herzl and other founders of Zionism was to set up a place where a Jew could live a full and free life without being forbidden to engage in any occupation, forbidden to serve in any political office or in any way to be unfairly limited in their pursuits.

Although some still hold that vision, to others it has become a tool to justify the subjection of other people.

It is generally the case with self-determination or ethnic nationalism. A group with a common ethnicity or religion seeks a territory to express their aspirations as a people. If they succeed those within the boundaries of the new political unit who do not belong to the dominant group become second-class citizens.

I used to think that a Jewish democratic state was possible. I no longer think that is any more possible than the alliance of any religion, ideology or ethnicity with the state in forming a democratic polity. That also goes for a Palestinian state which excludes Jews.

I see no reasonable substitute for a state which makes 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. I do not think the BDS movement will achieve that purpose nor do I think a ‘two state solution’ will achieve that purpose.

However, that is what I favour, and I think one must evaluate the BDS movement in terms of what its present members want rather than by the seamy origins of the movement.
Posted by david f, Friday, 16 August 2013 12:10:05 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
BSDetector,

Your writing style appears very similar to David Singer's, intriguing.
Posted by mac, Friday, 16 August 2013 3:34:38 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
Ha, ha. No I am not David Singer.

Dave f, there is a difference between a subjective and an objective racist. A subjective racist attributes negative character and other traits to people by virtue of their ethnic or national background, and believes that those negative traits are in some sense typical of the ethnic or national group to which they belong. An objective racist may harbour no stereotyped views about people of any particular ethnic or national background but will act or speak in a way that treats members of one particular ethnic or national group, and by virtue of that membership, less favourably than the members of another.

Thus, if a person were to contend that Palestinians are not an authentic nation and do not have the right to national self-determination and to their own state, I suspect that that person would be widely denounced as a racist, with Dave f leading the charge. Yet Dave sees no irony in contending, expressly or by implication, that the Jewish people (despite centuries of nationhood and statehood, amply attested by their own records and the writings of neighbouring civilisations) are not an authentic nation and do not have the right to national self-determination and their own state. He may not put it in the following terms but he is saying, in effect, that it’s ok for the Jews to live once again as vulnerable minority communities within States which each give expression to the language, culture and history of their majority community, but this would never do for the Palestinians!

Dave f has at least given the matter some thought. Ciara o’Loughlin’s disappointingly shallow analysis has not. She has just returned from studying in one of Israel’s finest universities but seems to have learned nothing and thought nothing about Jewish history, the nature of Jewish peoplehood and her complicity in the denial of both. And the legal issues of alleged discriminatory treatment that arise under the RDA are something else again, regardless of whether BDS as a movement is antisemitic. But in her muddled young mind all these matters are conflated.
Posted by BSDetector, Friday, 16 August 2013 8:05:17 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
Dear BSDetector,

As I tried to make plain I am against ethnic nationalism or self-determination for anybody. Whether Jews, Palestinians or any other are an 'authentic nation' is irrelevant.

I repeat: "I see no reasonable substitute for a state which makes 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."

The Palestinians are not entitled to a piece of land where they can discriminate against Jews, and the Jews are not entitled to a piece of land where they can discriminate against Palestinians.

I know it's hard to grasp that a person is against the idea of ethnic nationalism or self-determination where an 'authentic nation' can claim a territory. I believe any country should be for all its citizens. There should be no Palestinian state, Jewish state, Christian state, Muslim state, Buddhist state, Hindu state, Marxist state or any other state where the state is identified with a subset of its citizens.

Two peoples, whether authentic nations or not is irrelevant, are at odds over the same piece of land. The solution is not two separate states - one for each. It is one state which does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion. The religion or ethnicity of its citizens should be no business of any democratic gov't.

Ethnic nationalism whether pan-slavism, Zionism, the risorgimanto or the like arose in the 19th century. In the 18th century the 'Rights of Man' of the French and the 'all men are created equal' of the United States formed those two nations. As result of the Civil War the excluded black people were admitted to citizenship and through the civil rights movement to equality. I believe all nations should be formed in a similar manner.
Posted by david f, Friday, 16 August 2013 9:55:07 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
david f,

"I know it's hard to grasp that a person is against the idea of ethnic nationalism or self-determination where an 'authentic nation' can claim a territory."

It's indeed impossible to grasp if one is an ethno-religious chauvinist and who also claims special privileges for a specific group, of course Zionism is predicated on that doctrine.

My bs detector is off the scale.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 17 August 2013 9:31:45 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 Davf
For a definitive demolition of the ‘one-State’ illusion please read last Monday’s piece in the New York Times by Roger Cohen, “One-State Dream, One-State Nightmare”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/one-state-dream-one-state-nightmare.html?_r=0

As for Mac, every nation State in Europe and the Middle East is based on a claim by a majority language-culture group that it constitutes an authentic nation with a right of self-determination in its own territory. That is precisely what the Palestinians now claim. Even those Palestinians who seek a 'secular' State will tell you that it will be no less 'Palestinian' and no less 'Arab' for being 'secular'. It will join many other expressly "Arab" republics as a member of the Arab League and also the 56 States of the Organistion of the Islamic Conference. Arabic alone will be its official language and Islam will have a role to play in law-making. The right of self-determination is a fundamental human right, not a special privilege.
Posted by BSDetector, Saturday, 17 August 2013 9:50:46 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 BSDetector,

The right of self-determination is not a fundamental human right. It is a consequence of ethic nationalism which arose during the Romantic period as a reaction to the Enlightenment. A single state containing both Jews and Arabs with equal rights is of course impossible in the Middle East at this time. Both sides contain many who are imbued with hate for the other. Ethnic nationalism promotes such hate. I hope a single state will be possible in the future.

Self-determination as a political concept was invented by Woodrow Wilson at the Versailles Conference at the close of WW1. It broke up the Austro-Hungarian Empire into nation states which with the exception of Czechoslovakia became fascist between the two World Wars. Wilson was a racist born in the antebellum South which revolted against the United States largely to preserve slavery. He was extremely prejudiced against black people and was also prejudiced against the immigrants from eastern and southern Europe who were pouring into the US. By breaking up the Empire into national units he hoped to see Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and other 'inferior' people less likely to come to the US. That is my interpretation of Wilson's self-determination. It is a political formulation and not a human right.

I favour nations which 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. Nations formed by self-determination make such distinctions.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 August 2013 11:15:30 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 BSDetector,

Fundamental rights are for individual humans to be secure in their persons, to have access to the benefits available in society and to be free. The political formulation called self-determination allows people identified by a common religion, language or other criterion to form a nation state based on that identity. Those within the boundary of that nation state who do not share that identity are denied the full benefits of living in that state.

Self-determination is a political formulation which is inimical to the human rights of individual humans who do not share the paradigm of the state. The solution to the oppression resulting from self-determination is to see that all nations do not make distinctions among its citizens on any such paradigm.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 August 2013 1:11:12 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
BSDetector,

"...every nation State in Europe and the Middle East is based on a claim by a majority language-culture group that it constitutes an authentic nation with a right of self-determination in its own territory." Even if that is accepted as valid principle it offers absolutely support for Zionism.

You can't assert that Jews have a claim to Palestine simply because there were some majority Jewish societies there 2000 years ago. You're in fact supporting the Palestinian cause by invoking the doctrine of self-determination because there's no ethical basis for Zionism. Therefore Jews as a people, have no right to invade and occupy Palestine, since by doing so they violate Palestinians' rights to self determination.

I agree with david f, it's about time ethno-religious chauvinism disappeared, its demise is long overdue.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 17 August 2013 2:40:34 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
BSDetector wrote:

"...every nation State in Europe and the Middle East is based on a claim by a majority language-culture group that it constitutes an authentic nation with a right of self-determination in its own territory.”

Dear BSDetector,

The above is false if we actually look at the nation states of Europe. At the southeast of the Netherlands is a tendril extending to Maastricht. That is simply where the armies were at the time of the Peace of Westphalia. The boundaries of Europe are in part the limits of dynasties or armies.

Look at Belgium. It is a composite of two languages. Look at Switzerland. It has four languages - German, French, Italian and Romansch. Modern France is a product of the French Revolution which enshrined the Rights of Man. The first right is “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.” There is nothing in those rights referring to the French language or any religion.

Modern Germany resulted from union under Bismarck of several distinctive nations which specifically excluded the German speaking people in Austria. After the union authorities in Berlin specified a national language.

Modern Italy is the union of different kingdoms. A quote from the memoirs of d'Azeglio is L'Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani (literally: Italy has been made; now it remains to make Italians, but often reported more colloquially as "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians."). After Italy was united it did not have a common language. Part of making the residents of Italy into Italians was giving them a common language.

Your statement is nonsense based on ideology rather than history.

The idea of group rights has been the basis for oppression many times in history. ‘State's Rights’ was a rallying call for the Confederacy which revolted against the Union. The only state's right that was at issue as far as I can see was the right to keep humans in slavery. Like other minorities in an area not sharing the dominant paradigm slaves were oppressed.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 August 2013 3:23:35 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
Third line should be "no support for Zionism".
Posted by mac, Saturday, 17 August 2013 5:44:50 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
Davef, your personal (I would say idiosyncratic) view of the right of self-determination of peoples is completely at odds with contemporary international legal norms. The fundamental and incontrovertible nature of that right has been recognized in the UN Charter (Art 1.2) the ICCPR (Art 1.1) and by the ICJ in the Namibia, Western Sahara and East Timor cases. Professor James Crawford regards the right of self-determination and other peoples’ rights as a category of human rights. Individual rights are another.

And yes, I accept that the right applies also to the Palestinians. I support a two-State solution for that reason. The UN has supported a resolution of the conflict on the basis of two States for two peoples since 1947.

You will have a hard time convincing French people that the State of France is based solely on the rights of man and not also on the French language and culture. Your belief that nation-States can be founded solely on universalistic principles and in disregard of the ethnic, linguistic and cultural particularities of their majority populations is touching but utterly pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps in the distant future this might become possible but the trend for now is in completely the opposite direction. Even immigrant nations like Australia have difficulty conceiving themselves in exclusively universalistic terms.

Look at the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. Almost as soon as communism collapsed they each broke up into their constituent ethnic parts. Attempts to prevent each break-up caused shocking atrocities but since the break-up was achieved the resulting separate independent states have lived peacefully. Even the closely-related Czechs and Slovaks preferred an amicable divorce to an acrimonious marriage.

Yes, the Flemish and the Walloons and the different groups in Switzerland have managed to live together in one State, but never entirely happily. And you slyly omitted all mention of the Basques. Jews and Arabs differ in language, culture and religion. Forcing them to live in one State in roughly equal numbers would simply reignite the 1947-9 war with terrible consequences all round. And for what purpose? To satisfy your delicate sensibilities?
Posted by BSDetector, Sunday, 18 August 2013 1:53:19 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 BSDetector,

You are right. Self-determination is accepted in contemporary legal norms, and I have never denied that. It became accepted after the Versailles treaty when Woodrow Wilson brought it into diplomatic parlance.

My contention is the contemporary legal norms regarding self-determination are a source of conflict and oppression.

To contend as you have: “"...every nation State in Europe and the Middle East is based on a claim by a majority language-culture group that it constitutes an authentic nation with a right of self-determination in its own territory." ignores history. You have made a claim about every nation. All we have to do is find one nation for which that is not true, and your generalisation is false. As I pointed out Switzerland has four official languages. It is a stable conglomeration having existed since 1648 with the same boundaries. It is a nation state to which your generalisation, ‘every nation’, does not apply. A universal generalisation with an exception is no longer a universal generalisation. That is simple logic.

Certainly the Rights of Man are not what has solely determined the French state. However, it was not the claim by a majority language-culture group that gave France its current boundaries. Through much of European history the boundaries of nations were determined by dynastic considerations or the power of armies. Dynastic considerations ignored the language groups within a nations boundaries. The boundaries of France until the French Revolution were determined by the armies of the Bourbon dynasty and the natural boundaries it could defend. Current France is shaped by natural boundaries. The Atlantic Ocean, the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean and the Rhine determined the boundaries. Where the boundaries were not determined by natural defensive barriers as in the northeast there has been continual conflict. Within the there were many language groups and dialects. The Bourbons really didn’t care whether their domains spoke the same language. France after the French Revolution attempted to create a nation state by mandating a single language to be taught in the French schools. Nevertheless other languages still exist in France.

continued
Posted by david f, Sunday, 18 August 2013 4:39:19 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
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.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 18 August 2013 8:55:52 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
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.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 18 August 2013 12:06:45 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
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.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 18 August 2013 1:13:44 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
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.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 18 August 2013 6:06:33 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
LEGO,

So you can't provide any evidence, OK.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 18 August 2013 7:00:04 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
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.
Posted by BSDetector, Sunday, 18 August 2013 11:05:17 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
Dear BSDetector,

Thank you. May we have another discussion. I shall ramble on. Of course you may wish to respond.

The scientific method is a great way of finding out about the world. We look at the world and make generalisations or in scientific language, hypotheses, based on observations and experiments conducted on what exists.

Look at the existing nations and the way ethnic or religious categories have survived as distinct entities.

I make the hypothesis that a big factor in creating a nation is simply the act of drawing a political boundary around an area. Another is a successful struggle to survive. The evidence is those factors are more important than a shared religion or language.

Two long lived small nations are Switzerland and the Netherlands. The political boundaries in both cases were defined by the battle lines when the Thirty Years War ended. They have retained their national boundaries since 1648. Switzerland has four official languages and two main religions with a small minority of other religions. The Netherlands has one official language with a significant Frisian speaking minority and two main religions with a small minority of other religions. What preserved those nations is their early years was the strength of its armies. People within those two countries feel like Dutch and Swiss even though they do not have a common language or religion.

Almost all the nations of North America, South America and Africa are former colonies of the great European Empires. Their boundaries in general follow those that existed during colonial rule. Yet most Brazilians feel like Brazilians and most Ghanaians feel like Ghanaians. Within the boundaries of all those nations are a disparate conglomeration of peoples, language and religions.

The reality is that most nations are not formed by self-determination. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are two examples of nations formed by peaceful self-determination, and the nations formed from the former Yugoslavia are examples of nations formed by non-peaceful self-determination. The evidence is that self-determination is only a minor factor in nation formation.

continued
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 August 2013 6:04:36 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
Continued

Look at the long existence of the Jewish people.

Jews come in many shades and languages. Among my relatives are Jews who range in colour from very blond to very dark. Among my relatives are people I can’t speak to because we don’t have a common language.

One factor in our survival was anti-Semitism. As long it didn’t destroy us it kept us together by not allowing us to leave the community or allowing us to forget we were Jews.

Another factor was dispersion. As horrible as the Holocaust was many of us were not in the Nazi occupied area and survived. There have been other massacres. If Jews had all been gathered in one place that would have been the end.

Another factor is that Jews were not identified with any particular nation state. If a people is than the disappearance of the state generally means the disappearance of the people.

Another factor has been religion. Although there are fundamentalists there is also a questioning attitude.

Another factor has been the unity of community. Jews range in opinion from atheists to those of fervent religiosity. However, all of the ranges of opinion with the general exception of those who have seriously converted to another religion are accepted within the community.

Another factor existing in modern democracies is the separation of religion and state which maintains that the religion of citizens is no business of the government.

To a large extent Israel has succeeded in gathering Jews in one area which is surrounded by enemies. Ethiopian Jews along with other minority Jewish groups find problems being accepted. Jews outside of Israel get blamed for what Israel does whether or not we identify with Israel. People are not always easily accepted as Jews since an orthodox rabbinate decides who is a Jew. Since religion is connected with government those elements such as the orthodox rabbinate which have an official status put restrictions on other Jews. Haredim are at odds with secular and modern Orthodox Jews.

I think one big reason for our long survival was the absence of a state.
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 August 2013 6:09:13 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
Let's see if I have your worldview correct, DavidF.

You seem to think that a state can exist with no defining culture that represents the majority consensus as to what constitutes correct and legally enforceable behaviour? And you think it is possible to create secular democratic states made up of people with different ethnicities with diametrically opposed values?

Could I submit that stable nation states are one's where there is general agreement on what constitutes legally enforceable behaviour? It is precisely those countries which are cursed with multiculturalism where different groups have opposing values which are the most unstable and strife ridden.

Minorities can be tolerated provided that their numbers are small, their cultural differences are not major, and if there are major differences, that their abhorrent cultural practices are not plainly displayed. They can be tolerated provided that significant numbers of that minority do not engage in acts hostile towards the majority, and their numbers are not growing to the extent that the majority feels that its dominant culture is under threat.

A nation can not exist with two legal codes, because if that happens you no longer have one country, you have two.

You seem to agree that a cultural group has a right to self determination, and the right to create their own territory? But then you curiously seem to suggest that once that cultural group sets up its own state with its own cultural values defining the law, it has no right to defend it from other cultural groups within its territory who want to change it?

Could I suggest a hypothetical here?

The David F tribe finds an empty bit of land and it creates a secular democracy where is does not discriminate against anybody. Along comes another tribe of people who want to live in your territory with you and they have the power to outnumber your tribe. They do not believe in secular democracy and they are racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic into the bargain.

1. Do you all live happily ever after?
2. Start stacking stones on your ramparts?
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 19 August 2013 8:37:35 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 Lego,

Nations have not come about by a cultural group taking a piece of land and creating a nation. That is fantasy.

The nation of Australia came about because the English colonised it. Although it has accepted other people it is still basically English in culture. It was not established by a cultural group. It was established by the armed forces of the British government and colonists from that country not a cultural group as the original settlers and convicts were not just English. The convicts in addition to English were Irish, Jews and probably other elements.

Other nations have come about in different ways. Many are simply former colonies which are now under the control of descendants of the pre-colonial inhabitants. South Africa and India are that type of nation.

We do not have a single tribal identity since we identify with religious belief, ethnic group, nation, race and other criteria. However, different people give different values to the different identities.

Nations have forces pulling them apart and keeping them together.

If national identity is important to people we have a stable nation. If other forces are more compelling then the nation will come apart.

We do not have to have a dominant culture to keep a nation together. Although Switzerland has been peaceful in recent history Swiss soldiers have been quite effective in the past in preserving their nation even though there was no dominant culture. Switzerland stays together because the Swiss feel their identity as Swiss is more compelling than their ethnic identities.

The United Kingdom is coming apart because the Scots are feeling their identity as Scots is more important than their citizenship in the UK.

My primary allegiance is to the United States of America. If the US were no longer a secular democracy my allegiance would disappear. Force may be necessary to preserve the nation.

After the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Ben Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.

Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 August 2013 10:35:10 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
Posted on Thursday 15th @ David G

((" Israel doesn't have wagons! It has F-16s and nukes, lots of them.

"It also is driven by a deranged notion that some god or other has chosen its people to be his or her children.

"Israel, along with the U.S., should be BDS-ed out of existence. If that happened, world tensions would decline by 50%!"))

That comment David G I think the AHRC would be interested to see and no doubt take action on it. That is pure racial and religious hatred.

Seeing as to how you are *trying*, very, to be a smart Alec, maybe you should learn what the expression “G-d’s chosen people” means.

It means that G-d chose Jews to follow his religion, because all other peoples at the time were idolaters. Not chosen for anything else.

As for your comment “world tensions would decline by 50%”
I won’t bother answering that.
You tell me what planet you are living on if you think that for one moment.
Israel would love to live in peace and security, but the Arabs don’t.
If Israel failed to exist tomorrow, the Arabs would go back to what they’ve always done and war amongst themselves.

Thank you DavidF for this comment

“A democratic state must make no distinction among its citizens on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation and ethnicity. However, to single out Israel, the only Jewish state, and to ignore Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Marxist or other states that also discriminate on the basis of religion, ideology, sexual orientation or ethnicity sure smells like Jew hatred to me.”

That is exactly what antisemitism is.
Posted by SF, Monday, 19 August 2013 11:54:36 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 Lego,

The United States is a stable entity which is not going away soon.

You wrote: “A nation can not exist with two legal codes, because if that happens you no longer have one country, you have two.”

The United States has many legal codes and many laws which are quite different from one area to another. Laws of marriage and divorce are determined by the state. Some states allow same sex marriage. Other states don’t. Louisiana is not even under English Common Law. It was a French colony which was purchased by Jefferson from France. Louisiana still operates by the Code Napoleon. Some of the American Indians live separately in areas operating under their own laws.

The United States exists quite well with many legal codes and remains a superpower.

The United States has a predominately white population which has elected a black man as its president. The American tribe is not determined by colour.

You wrote: “You seem to agree that a cultural group has a right to self determination, and the right to create their own territory?”

I don’t agree with self-determination at all. I think no group should have a right to claim a territory on the basis of a shared ethnic identity. That condemns those people within that territory who do not share that identity to second-class citizenship. As I have stated in a previous post: “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.”

You don’t have my world view correct.

Although I disagree with many of your positions I think you probably are more honest about them then most people who post, but I wish you would read my posts more carefully.

I oppose self-determination. I think nations should make no distinction among their citizens on the basis of ethnicity, religion, ideology, sex, gender identification and any other matter which should not be related to citizenship. One cannot have such a nation along with self-determination based on religious, cultural or ethnic identity.
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 August 2013 12:10:46 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
Dear DavidF

North America, Australia and New Zealand were settled primarily by the North European protestant people with English being the common language on account of the fact that most of the original European settlers were British. Just because there were a few Jews and Catholics and other minorities among the original settlers does not detract from that fact.

Your desire to create a nation that is race, religion and culture blind equates to the quixotic dream of the socialists to create a class free society. There is not a single country on planet Earth which does not have a dominant culture, and fighting to decide who's culture is the dominant one in every territory is the single most important reason for human hostility within those countries cursed with multiple cultural identities who's population proportions have reached critical mass.

Where two or more cultures exist in any territory which have diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive cultural values (exacerbated by race) and birth rate differentials, the result has always been serious civil disorder, race riots, demands for separatism, terrorism, and finally civil war. The aim of separatists is to create societies where their culture is the dominant one and no amount of dreamy fantasising by yourself is going to prevent that. Most people think that the desire to live in a society with their own kith and kin where they feel safe is something worth fighting for. Why be a minority in one country when you can split the country in two and make the former majority who's values you reject a minority in yours?

The idea of preventing war by having everybody holding hands and singing "Kumaya" around the campfire is a nice idea, but it is as likely to happen as preventing teenage pregnancies by telling teenagers that they must not think about sex.

Now, the question still stands. If your desire is for a secular nation, how would you reconcile that with living in a country with a growing minority which insisted on laws which complied with the dictates of any particular religion, who's values you vehemently opposed?
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 19 August 2013 9:41:09 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
Dear Lego,

I am not enjoying our interchange so will end my part of it.

Goodbye,
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 9:21:46 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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