The Forum > Article Comments > Law against racial vilification steeped in Australian history > Comments
Law against racial vilification steeped in Australian history : Comments
By Peter Wertheim, published 20/12/2013Fanny Reading's case against Smith's Weekly resonated with many of the kinds of issues that provoke debate in contemporary Australia – refugee children, terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
-
- All
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 27 December 2013 8:00:32 AM
| |
Lego, there has to be a modification to what you are stating about race.
DNA within some races is modified by culture which complicates your simplification. The point is illustrated by the custom of marrying cousins in the Arab races and to other Islamic races, eg South Asian. The resultant genetic problems have been reported on by the NSW health dept to parliament and the Midlands Health Service to the House of Commons. A very delicate subject no doubt, but does explain some behaviours. Posted by Bazz, Friday, 27 December 2013 10:32:01 AM
| |
In response to Lego I think I've been Gish galloped into silence, having made more than four responses, but I'll take a punt.
#1:I have not blamed racism for causing the war. What it did (as I pointed out quite clearly) was to ENABLE the war by providing a false ground (race) for closing ranks with bad guys as Germans and Japs. #2: False analogy. Science and technology is about exploring reality. Racism is about ducking it. Different animals. #3#4: Correct up to a point, but only sentimental racists blame the so-called "white" race for the self-inflicted dysfunction of minorities. The answer to minority dysfunction is to require individuals to shape up. This means among other things to require them to conform to universal moral standards - including not brawling over racial differences, respecting privacy, not demanding public expenditure to accommodate minority "cultures", upholding the freedoms hard-won in the Enlightenment and defended from the Axis. #5: Who is it wants laws against Crimethink? I for one would abolish all racial and religious vilification laws and replace them with strict application of libel laws holding sweeping statements about an ethnic group liable for damages to all individuals locked in the group by genetics (thus covered) if the utterance (1) can be shown to damage the individuals personally AND (2) can't be shown to be true. I notice the secret to Lego’s Gish gallops is straw men – seems to find “leftie-”ism (i.e. skewed beliefs), or allegations of “whites” being to blame for non-“white” dysfunction, or invented talk about “evil”, being more comfortable to rebut than actual reasoned discourse. Racism is not evil, but it is a key weapon in the armoury of evil. [Great book: "War Against the Weak" - Edwin Black (Amazon, Google)] Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 27 December 2013 10:00:07 PM
| |
Australia is with out words, the last island where all can come with a numbers in mind.....you know me...fair and white to the hills...with nine different bloods types from all over the world.
So...whats your point:)....The world as one is my dream....and in the end...your all the same ape... Get rid of religion, and you will move forward. Planet3 Posted by PLANET3, Saturday, 28 December 2013 12:10:59 AM
| |
Posted by PLANET3, Saturday, 28 December 2013 12:25:29 AM
| |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zurVNlzrCFwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q6BOnwIAQ
I wonder where pat is? Planet3 Posted by PLANET3, Saturday, 28 December 2013 12:47:40 AM
|
Your premise is, that racism caused WW2, therefore racism must be unspeakably evil. The people who advocate racism as a self evident reality must be therefore be "bad', while the people who oppose racism are "good."
Could I suggest that this equates with saying that Hiroshima and Human Induced Global Warming was caused by "science and technology", and therefore science and technology must be unspeakably evil? People who advocate science and technology as self evident reality are "bad", while people who oppose science are "good."
As a former non racist like your good self, I was struck by the fact that the most common explanation for minority dysfunction by "anti racists" was racist in itself. This was, of course, the "blame the white guy for everything" excuse. No matter what subject we were dealing with when talking about minority dysfunction, endemic drug use, unemployment, crime rates, welfare dependency, lack of educational attainment, health problems, or economic success, the anti racist lobby could always find a way to blame my race, with a bit of judicious pushing and shoving of the facts.
Faced with two racist explanations for minority dysfunction, my approach was to objectively ascertain through reasoned logic which racist explanation was the most valid. My conclusion was to reject the "blame the white guy for everything" racist philosophy while still conceding some validity to this explanation in certain circumstances. My conclusion accepted that human behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture. Cultural values are crucial in understanding why some ethnicities behave in certain ways and why others do not, and so is genetics. If we can recognise that certain breeds of dogs are not real smart and that certain breeds of dogs are extremely violent, by what reasoned logic could you conclude that making the same recognition about human breeds is "evil"?
Finally, the very idea that people must be legally prevented for speaking or writing about any subject which is in opposition to the current orthodoxy is something that we as an advanced civilisation began to reject 400 years ago during the Enlightenment