Sukrit Sabhlok . . .

. . . and to ALL –

Can someone please provide us with a decent and authentic definitional boundary-horizon for this term “RACISM” prior to making moral judgements and statements based upon that term as a premise?

What does the author Sukrit assume the term “racism” to encompass? I wonder?
Does it merely include the verbal use of words and phrases which in current culture is seen to be racist . . . such as “wog” or “nip” [sorry if that upsets to hear]?
I wonder if Mr Sabholk would consider the impossible strict stubbornness his parents may have forced into his life or his sister’s when they all but demanded their kids marry and copulate with persons from their strict little racial and cultural universe? I know my own vast experiences in this area tell me that in most non-western family’s they usually are extremely traditional and into their own people and culture, and I know that many from such are either forced to marry someone their parents choose or they feel such pressure they simply do it anyway.

Is this racist too to Sukrit?

Or does he like seemingly most of us, only register his racism antennae when he hears someone call him a name?

What ever happened to be old 'sticks & stones' notion?

. . . . continued . . .

This complete ignorance to actually take time to define and understand exactly what we mean by the term “racism” is why on one hand a Sukrit can seem to compare being called a racist name to crimes like murder . . . . . BUT on other hand think nothing of someone [no doubt common in his cultural background] whose parents forced them to marry under their arrangement.

What about this – a few years ago the Racial Discrimination Commissioner [forget name] investigated some complaints that in Sydney it is a common practice for a Vietnamese shop to sell dearer to non-Viet or a Lebanese or Indian shop owner etc. Channel 9’s A Current Affair showed the story and interviewed the commissioner who investigated and found it to be true that particularly white Australians were always charged more and treated as less than whatever ethnic group’s business they attended.

But he did something that undermined his entire office and the entire idea of prejudice –
- he refused to call it racism. Instead he merely claimed that “they just feel more comfortable with their own kind” as reason for the actions which had they been other way around would be on world news and he himself would be calling for heads and criminal charges.

Until we stop focusing 100% on mere words and name calling, and turn to focus on real and actual institutional racism and prejudice [e.g. refusal to allow outsiders into family] then the issue is nothing more than paranoid and likely racists [themselves] people who think the world is out to get them.

If we went down SUkrit's path on how we judge a crime, then just saying 'I will murder you' would be deemed the main crime even above the actual murder if it eventuated.

In 1967 Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend s.51(xxvi) of their Constitution.

Acknowledged purpose of Australians was to eliminate, to make unlawful, discrimination between Australians, particularly usage of racial identification to qualify rights and responsibilities of any and all Australians.

Australians voted to STOP ALL racial discrimination of Australians by governments.

Commonwealth ignores what Australians voted to eliminate.

Commonwealth purports its claims the aim of Australians was to widen opportunity for government to discriminate between Australians using racial identification.

Does anyone seriously suggest over 90% of Australians voters would have supported this referenda if told it was to widen racism, racist discrimination between and of Australians, in Australia ?

Commonwealth spends billions pouring money into racial projects rather than needs projects.

As member of a family segregated through Commonwealth racial identification this is particularly clear.

Even family members identified and acknowledged as “Traditional Owners” (eg shareholders in Commonwealth created Corporations and Trusts) continue to be denied their otherwise basic right as Australians to have their family, their relations and their friends visit them or live with them.

Racism and apartheid remain Commonwealth policy, with same old excuse claiming all this is to help, using ongoing denial of otherwise basic human rights and responsibilities.

Attempts to resolve this through negotiation, and in courts, obstructed.

All parties, Supreme Court Judges and appeal courts, agree matters raised need be pursued to obtain judicial determinations, all parties indicating critical Constitutional issues need High Court resolution.

So the Commonwealth denies legal assistance.

Legal assistance denied to ensure NO fair trial of the serious legal issues raised, so the courts stay proceedings until legal assistance can be obtained.

Legal assistance for issues involving Commonwealth legislation come from the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

Commonwealth stifles judicial determinations, to prevent resolution of the issues, so Australians remain segregated.

Who amends our Constitution ?

Sukrit Sabhlok "Free speech is fundamental in liberal democracies"

Yes, all sensible people know this.

But the Loony Left, despite their "liberal" claims, are not actually interested in "liberty".

They are interested in being "correct" (as if there are "correct" and "incorrect" opinions, values, perspectives) and in making everyone else be "correct" too.

It's their way or the highway.

polpak, the 1967 vote did not "STOP ALL racial discrimination".

The clause in question actually *allows* the government to make laws about racial groups.
It still does.
What was amended was the *exclusion* of Aborigines.

So now the government can make "special laws" for Aborigines, Chinese, Arabs or anyone they damn well please.

"Commonwealth spends billions pouring money into racial projects rather than needs projects."

Such as?
Their Watchtower-naive anti-racist propaganda, bureaucracy, frivolous prosecutions of journalists?
Their generous funding of alien minority cultural events and community groups?
Their translators and interpreters for every department?

"so Australians remain segregated"

Some Aborigines choose to live separately.

Don't want segregation?
No referendum or High court decision required.

Just move to Sydney, Melbourne or pretty much anywhere except a specifically Aboriginal reservation.
Problem solved.

Gee Sukrit

'Criminal lawyers defend the worst members of our society for the same reason advocates of free speech defend the liberties of racists'

is that reason money?

> If Australia had a Bill of Rights guaranteeing free speech as in the United States, the ability of the federal government to restrict speech would have been limited in any case. Since we do not have a Bill of Rights, only an alert populace can stop encroachments upon their liberties.

Actually, it is not the Bill of Rights that makes a difference, it is the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, specifically of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that makes a difference. The First Amendment to the Constitution in regard to speech is short and very limited: literally it only restrains the law-making power of Congress (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances). What that means has been subject to a broad interpretation in the last 75 years and to a very expansive interpretation only in the last 25 years. Literally also it only applies to speech, not to expression more generally. Now the First Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means ie the Bill of RIghts has limited force outside what the Court says it is.

A clear example of the significance of interpretation can be seen in a contrast between the First Amendment in regard to religion (see above) and s 116 of the Australian Constitution (The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth): the litigation and outcomes in Australia in this area are tiny compared to the US, despite the rough similarity of the provisions. What makes the difference is an interventionist and adventurous US Court, which for better or worse we do not have in Australia.