abyss

"While racism as an ideological belief in a hierarchy of biological races has lost its coherence and has very few adherents today, the word is still used to denote the multitude of ways in which human beings are marginalised, demeaned, threatened, excluded and de-humanised on the basis of the way they look or a devalorisation of their group identity. The multitude of forms that racism takes today makes it more difficult than ever to formulate anti-racist strategies that are capable of countering its slippery nature"

You said:
>>What's wrong with talking about 'lions of lebanon' raping 'aussy sluts'? <<

Does anyone know the ethnicity of the alleged Canterbury Bulldogs rapists or victim? This is not an irreverent joke, but a relevant question about the connection between crime and culture.
Let us compare the publicity surrounding three "gang rape" crimes. With the Canterbury Bulldogs rugby league club, the main reference to culture has been to the "male pin-up" culture characterised by escalating claims of group sex, male bonding, and rites of passage.
Even our Prime Minister has publicly defended the league's reputation, stressing that it is "quite unfair" on the players who have "not been accused of anything" to be subjected to these "generalisations": "I know a lot of people associated with rugby league and they are decent, upright citizens."
However, we saw no equivalent caution from our national leader against generalisations during the hysteria over Sydney's "Lebanese gang" rapes. Where was the "I know a lot of people from the Lebanese community and they are decent, upright citizens"?
If our knee-jerk reaction is to blame the ethnic culture for the crime rather than the criminal subculture, then it is written off as incurable because it is "in the blood".
Let us now compare the rugby league players with the youths from an exclusive Anglican all-boys boarding school in Sydney who were charged in 2001 with committing 75 sexual assaults over a six-month period: 50 on one victim and 25 on another.

Please read an earlier OLO piece: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2060

How the media cover gang rape, sport, power - and prejudice

Well said sabasakin.

Abyss... few points.

Can't help but feel your commentary there is a tad emotive, though I must admit I did voice some concerns about sedition laws and I'm still concerned about them.
I wouldn't have desribed it as "ranting hysterically", but I suppose that's for others to judge.

The reason for concern about the catholic right and president bush is the simple fact that they are the ones in power.
They have much more ability to decide the fate of the world than any single terrorist.
I would never say that the motivations of the US president or the catholic right is something as heinous as murder, though I'd say they wield more power and have more scope to abuse that power, so we should be keeping an eye on them.

Were I to interpret your statements in a similar broad fashion as to how you are interpreting mine, I'd say you were implying that people such as the liberals, and bush are beyond reproach and shouldn't be questioned.

However, I suspect that would be summarising this issue a little too simply, correct? Yes? No? Perhaps this is just another hysterical rant of a fool that isn't worthy of comment.
Note here that I for one, tend to regard statements that attribute hypothetical views to people as more indicative of ranting.

In response to the other statements: nothing wrong with talking about 'lions of lebanon' rapists. I'd just urge you to talk about all the other rapists too, who don't necessarily come from lebanon. Don't turn a blind eye to any of them, regardless of what minority they come from.

As for 'bigger picture' meaning 'lets do nothing' I would refute that - I've no problem advocating harsher sentences for rapists, especially violent ones. I'd also suggest we look at how our system prosecutes them.

In regard to the sheikh, he won't last long anyhow, that's been pretty clear for a while and has become crystal clear in the last few days.

Sabaskin,

The difference is some nuts rape as they are sick fools ; while islamic nuts rape driven by islamic lust

[i.e rape a white woman for not wearing a hijab;
rape a white woman for not wearing a jijab;
rape her as she deserves it by lowering the dress;
rape her as she is uncovered meat kept outside] .

Got the difference?

Tit for Tat,

You said:

>> The difference is some nuts rape as they are sick fools ; while islamic nuts rape driven by islamic lust.<<

Bad luck, because the Koran (God’s Word) does not endorse any such view. It is not a genuine Muslim view. Rape is a criminal offence in Islam -- regardless of the victim’s attire and religious background.

Continuing from my comments on Irfy’s thread…(my quota on that thread has finished for the day unfortunately)…

The Koran (God's Word, according to Muslims) does not endorse patriarchy, polygyny or slavery - it merely notes their existence and provides legislation for where it does. It's underlying weltanschauung, however, is one of egalitarianism. That is the ideal goal of sharia.

By the way, my comments were excerpted from another OLO poster called ummyasmin.

Tit for tat, you asked:

(4) If a muslim converts to non-muslim religion, why should he die/suffer?

Koran (God’s Word) does not endorse any punishment for conversion from Islam to another religion. Islam, at least mainstream Sunni Islam does not condone the concept of priesthood. A mufti’s views are not binding on Muslims.

Philo, you said:

>>West,
On religious oppression I happen to agree with you, it is not a genuine Christian view.<<

Philo, you also said:

>> Muslims generally believe all sexual sins are schemed by women.<<

Bad luck, because the Koran (God’s Word) does not endorse any such view. So, to return your words back to you, “It is not a genuine… (Muslim) view.”

To ones who might be interested to know,

Koran (God’s Word) never mentions about 17 or 71 promised virgins in Paradise. It uses an Arabic word called “jawzan”, the English translation of which would be “spouse”.

Well… that’s enough for tonight…gtg.

Sabasakin & TLTR,

I would bet my life that if I searched through previous posts regarding criticism of those Anglos and Christians you feel the need to remind us all of, that neither of you then expressed the same pressing need to remind everyone that there are also Muslims and Middle Eastern members of the community who have done such and such.

How come you yourself cannnot see how transparent your supposed objectivity is? You are nothing BUT political!

I, along with others you accuse of "turning a blind eye" to these other examples of bigotry, are the people who can proudly claim to be against redneck bigotry in ALL of its colours and creeds. YOU cannot.

TLTR,

RE your argument in support of your bias: "The reason for concern about the catholic right and president bush is the simple fact that they are the ones in power. They have much more ability to decide the fate of the world than any single terrorist"

How do you measure "power", and how do you decide when it is "good" or "bad" power?

Do you underestimate the "power" of Al Jazera's filthy propaganda?

Since "factual evidence" can be taken out of context, I'd look to structural or institutional practices for verification ot falsification.

For example, in the US, from the media right through to the Pentagon, we have lots of evidence of "dissent", and no Fatwas or Tianamen Squares as a result. And no, it's NOT because the US has a more sophisticated systen to "Manufacture Consent", for that very system itself willingly churns out the most pathetic anti-Bush types like Mike Moore right before a Presidential election!

Do you underestimate the (violent) power of the far-left's constructed discourse of victimhood surrounding various ethnic/religious "minorities"?

Here we have a case of people raised to coinsider Anglos as filth, that is, pre-existing rednecks, who are then given, by the loony-left, an existential space in which to re-articulate their racism as a legitimate reaction to the so-called racist host society. The left cultivate the discourse for this madness! ....

.... That Anglos are for the first time in Australian history articulating their experinces of racism is a sure sign of the extent to which the media, education department, and the universities are "powerful", overrun as they are by the populist herd politics of the pro-multiculty left (and thus, 'turning a blind eye' to skipp-bashing).
Prior to now one was called a "racist" for voicing such concerns, concerns ABOUT the xenophobia of sections of the selfishly insular branch-stackable population.

Even the recent HEROC pamphlet "Voices" has for the first time printed the experiences of some Anglo victims of racism (Does it make you cringe?).

And there's no way you could interpret my statements in "a similar broad fashion" as to how I supposedly interpreted yours, since I am not the one to have put myself in the position of having an obvious bias, you are. You have absolutely NO reason to advise me: "Don't turn a blind eye to any of them [other rape cases], regardless of what minority they come from".

I would just as much criticise those you criticise, such as past "gangs" of skinheads who would intimidate non whites.

But just imagine how the victims of those skinheads would have felt if we all adopted your position of telling them they must consider the existence of non-white gangs of racists also! Laughable!