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.

Has anyone really asked our government or the people behind our government as to why they wish to repeal s 18 ?

It is merely a smokescreen, why, when our Constitution does not even protect the right to life, should it even dawn upon anyone that the movers & shakers behind the scenes are posturing for something more sinister. Why, when still we wait for a proper Bill of Rights, should we let this go on ?

We know for fact that the premise upon which the War On Terror kicked off, was flawed. As were the allegations of Weapons Of Mass Destruction supposedly held by Saddam Hussein. All of which resulted the Terror Laws that now operate, & they too were based on a desire to change the common law rights of Australian Citizens.

As in the aftermath of September 11, we again see the elected parliament ramming through, at chamber sittings in the dead of night more and more restrictions.

Benjamin Franklins words still ring true today...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Albie Manton, it is the creators and supporters of these kinds of laws that have "given up essential liberty to purchase a little safety".

They deserve contempt.

Have you ever asked whether the creation of such laws is a smokescreen for something more sinister?

Like the obliteration of distinct peoples?

The dumbing down of Europeans by genetic mixture with less intelligent peoples?

The weakening of nationalism, ushering in a totalitarian global authority, that far from respecting ethnic differences, completely devalues them?

The dilution of worker's rights and decent income through a labour force excess?

The censoring of any discussion or research relating to the races, and hence history itself?

A generation of easily manipulated children, brainwashed with happy-love-love propaganda and a history-devoid social context?

Who do you think "Big Brother" would support?

The "racists" who question ideological orthodoxy?
Or the ignore-reality-history-nature promoters of a superficial social void?

This author's article is a dishonest attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of people who would normally oppose the politically correct concept of a Bill of Rights, by claiming that such a bill would protect free speech.

A Bill of rights would be a sugar coated cyanide pill for democracy in Australia. It would give activist judges the right to suppress laws enacted by the people's parliament on the grounds that these democratically arrived laws violate the Bill of Rights.

Rights conflict, and rights can be interpreted in so many ways it gives unelected judges as much scope as they need to make the implementation of democratic government impossible.

One only has to appreciate the endless legal manoeuvrings over the "rights" of boat people, which the legal community thinks must always over ride he rights of Australians to say who may, or who may not, enter our own country. Remember when that NSW Family Law Court judge ordered that all boat people children held in detention must be released immediately on the grounds that it violated the family Law Act? This is exactly the sort of thing that the implementation of a Bill of Rights can get us into. The NSW Family Law Court was never meant to dictate to the Federal government how it should implement its immigration policies.

One suspects that the real reason why some people are trying on this Bill of Rights to protect free speech, is because they realise that too many people are waking up to the fact that the entertainment industry needs to have its wings clipped over its never ending endorsement of illegal drugs, violence and criminal behaviour, which is having serious consequences for the community.

can certain people please stop saying stupid and non-sensical things about race, genetics and tribal uber-beings.

Anyone who claims that – ‘race or tribe X is superior than tribe J etc.”
. . . is ridiculous as HOW can they prove some physical, genetic evidence for this.

People who claim ‘white Europeans are the best race on earth” are making claims they nor anyone else can substantiate nor even make seem feasible.

I personally believe that such stupid and apparently racist remarks from whites or any peoples EVER . . . is a simple misstep in intellection and comprehension.

That is to say – I think that ANY racist like this in actuality means to articulate – my particular tribe’s ways and notions and ‘culture’ is better [they think] than others. How can anyone talk about the hierarchy of minute physical aspects [genes] that they cannot even see let alone judge.

Thus to all white supremacist lava of filth who talk like this [and to all other racial nuts of any colour] -\ next time MAYBE only debate the hierarchy of different cultures and tribal ways – NOT genetics.

Matthew S, Ye shall know them by their fruits.
And the apple doth not fall far from the tree.

Make a list of accomplishments of people of European descent.
Now create a comparable list of non-Europeans.

Which do you think will the be longest list?

Many European civilisations have crumbled, but there are other peoples who've never even created a *single* advanced society.
Not one!
Mud huts and spears.

There are peoples who've never developed agriculture, writing, architecture more permanent than a tent, political structures more sophisticated than who has the biggest club and the strongest arm.

These people are "equal" to the creators of Notre Dame or The Parthenon?

"How can anyone talk about the hierarchy of minute physical aspects [genes] that they cannot even see let alone judge."

You can't see someone's brain neurons firing either.
But you can see by their *output* how intelligent they are.

"MAYBE only debate the hierarchy of different cultures and tribal ways – NOT genetics."

We already argue that.
It's still condemned as "racist" anyway.

Haven't there been documented associations of body type with personality traits?
How many more possible "invisible" correlations might there be?

Which came first, the genes or the memes?

Does it not seem likely the variant genetic expressions of different populations have something to do with the variant external social expressions of the same populations?

As inside, so outside.

It's ultimately irrelevant to any debate about demographic transformation whether we're "superior".
We are DIFFERENT.

Australians are not the same genetically or culturally as Tibetans, Quechua, Turks, Samoans, etc.

We have as much right as they to exist and perpetuate ourselves as a *distinct* people and culture.

Doing this may "offend" or exclude some other types of people.
It should not be ILLEGAL to "offend" or exclude aliens, in defence of your own folk.

Shockadelic –

It seems you way, way missed my point.

History and evolution both of organic structures as well as any other social, technological or moral/political constructions spawned from some of those life forms . . . . . tend to move and be moved in terms both temporal and spatial which are way above and beyond our limited perceptual horizons.

That is to say . . . just because certain European peoples and cultures have been first to become fully immersed into science and advancement as well as in moral and political improvement [in law at least], how can that fact itself act as a PREMISE to which u can use to prove European superiority in all things even their specific genetic patterns?

First – what proof is there to show genetic differences are 100% responsible for this betterness?

Second – what studies and evidence has been collected which could refute 100% that most of those advances and “superior” aspects in Europeans were shaped over millennia by geological and other weather factors coupled with all outside forces competing for influence? Maybe Europeans became lighter than other races since they spent more millennia in harsh snow conditions which itself may have added more motivation [survival] for them to make fire and to invent in general.

I certainly agree that the science and most of the philosophy of morals and society which Europe spawned is of the highest and most authentic of ways for any people to aspire to including all of time.
But, UNLESS u wish to get whatever tribe of man first made a fire [maybe they were Asiatic Eskimos] before the secret was learned and spread to all tribes . . . . . this first fire tribe was and is now always superior even genetically for this great invention . . . . . u have to realize Europeans may have been first tribe to invent many things but one day the world will lose sight of the firstness of the achievement . . . . . as ALL people will seem equally superior.