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 > Moral responsibility and citizenship > Comments

Moral responsibility and citizenship : Comments

By Helen Irving, published 22/12/2006

Citizenship does not make a person virtuous, and being a non-citizen does not make a person morally suspect.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
While I agree with the concept that being a citizen or non-citizen does not a moral and worthy person make, I do not accept that the current discussion on citizenship has anything to do with this concept.

Many people in 'western democratic nations' have been asleep at the wheel, so to speak, and are waking up to a world that is increasingly being organised around them and for them by those who are not representative of them. I refer here to the United Nations and its various NGOs, and the overriding of national legislature and laws by this unrepresentative and non-democratic body. So we are now being introduced to the concept of a world without borders, and are going WTF!

I see these discussions on citizenship as a backlash to the 'global community' concept being slowly, deceptively forced on us. The concept that all cultures are equal, even though some cultures abuse the very human rights under the United Nations declaration, is an example of this.

The Howard Government is responding to this general feeling from the Australian community. Some might say populist, therefore the Australian communities 'betters' should override and decide. I for one would at least like an open, honest discussion and input to such a change to our particular part of the world.
Posted by chrisse, Friday, 22 December 2006 9:09:42 AM
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
Chrisse says that "Many people in 'western democratic nations'...are waking up to a world that is increasingly being organised...by those who are not representative of them." She worries about "a world without borders". She's referring to the United Nations and its various NGOs, and the overriding of national legislature and laws by this unrepresentative and non-democratic body.

Chrisse may have a point when she characterises recent manufactured discussions on citizenship as a backlash to the 'global community' concept being gradually forced on us. But she's chosen the wrong villain. The UN is the least of our worries. Over the past decade it has been ineffectual in asserting moral or any other sort of leadership in a range of crises notably in the Middle East. The incapacity of national governments like Australia's to control what happens within their own borders (and beyond) is much more profoundly influenced by transnational economic powers and the economic and military might of the US.

I share Chrisse's wish for an open, honest discussion on citizenship; but I fear that many Australians are being fooled into chasing the wrong rabbits down dead-end burrows.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 22 December 2006 9:55:23 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
Despite all the above criticism about the UN, I am yet to hear a viable alternative except a return to the law of the jungle.
Who will undertake all the other roles currently performed by the UN besides peacekeeping?
Maybe the UN would work better if a few nations didn't abuse their veto powers and paid their membership dues.

As for citizenship, the debate so far seems to be simply about achieving uniformity when what we really need is unity.

Getting a Driver's Licence for example, doesn't automatically make you a better driver and any proposed citizenship tests are only token gesture.

The real agenda is about maintaining social division for political gain.

A good article with some well made points.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 22 December 2006 11:02:56 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
Quote:

"We add an extra burden to their lives if we castigate them for failure to take part in extra activities that we assume to be the responsibility of citizens."

There is an answer to this: create two classes of citizen: that is, those to whom citizenship is important, who are willing to do jury service, vote, defend the country and its laws and the like, and those who are not.

Those who are willing to be citizens should receive all the rights of a citizen - that is equality under the law, assistance from the australian government whilst travelling, full social security, and similar measures.

Those who don't want to take the responsibilities of a citizen seriously should not expect the country to take their assumed rights seriously, whether they were born here or not.

Perhaps we should all need to take an oath of citizenship when we turn 18, and not just accept it due to an accident of birth.
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 22 December 2006 12:05:34 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
Citizenship isn't supposed to confer morality it supposed to give the individual a seat at the national table and the right to participate in the course and direction of national interest. Not having citizenship means that while you may voice your opinion for or against, your opinion isn't valued or necessarily considered as to events or policies of national or social governance. Moral responsibility is to be taught in the home and with in the educational system. And exercised as example in law. Citizenship should be a living example of that collective morality. Crime is an exception and a very low percentage in the social experience ~5%. If the government of Australia is failing it's citizens than the citizens have failed to govern. Democracies require the attention of their citizenship to function as a democracy. Otherwise you end up with something quite different filling the void left by inattention and neglect. Of course if all the entities that make up that society are at odds as to whom or what is the most special, the most deserving, or the greater victim. Then citizenship isn't all that important. Choosing the faction that best represents your grievance takes a higher importance. Cultural vandalism. Way ta represent dude! Bring down the system man! Politics suck!
Excuse me. Did you actually admit to being Australian? Gross.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 22 December 2006 12:50:32 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
And doing nothing to ensure immigrants will contribute to social cohesion instead of disharmony makes one thing.

A Trojan Horse.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:09:35 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
Cowboy Joe did not say a lot, but he said much.

Trojan horse ? possibly, in the case of a certain element with warlike tendencies DEFinitely, or the same group having scriptures with CURSE Jews and Christians by name, and claim God is against them, and add to this the following:

1/ The authorization to FIGHT (defensively ?)for this religion.
2/ The example of its founder who clearly showed that 'pre-emptive' attacks on those suspected of forming alliances against him and political assassination/murder are quite legitimate.

One can only conclude that taken together, we have a group which has as its foundation principle:

To make pre-emptive attacks against those who are cursed by Allah, deluded and away from truth, who are never to be taken as friends, and who by nature are hated by Allah, because they, by nature are against Allah's religion and are thus scheming by default how to destroy Allah's people.

Hence we have 13 people in Melbourne and 11 in Sydney who are charged with acting on this very foundation.

One has to wonder, if these are those who were 'caught' how many are there out there who as yet are 'un-caught' but have the same thinking ?

PAUL opens his letter to the Galatians as follows:

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia:

Quite a strong claim ! Not one to be taken lightly.
He continues further, based on this divine authority in verse 8:

[But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!]

CONCLUSION. When it comes to mankind's salvation, there is only one way, and that.. is in Christ. Any distraction, or distortion, or misguiding is viewed in the most serious manner by the Almighty.

Have all the self help courses you like, all the positive thinking, all the meditation, but let it not be said to give 'Salvation'
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 24 December 2006 8:03:58 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
David_Boaz

You remind us - on the eve of Christmas - that there are 13 people in Melbourne and 11 in Sydney charged with various offences. Have they been found guilty yet? If not, have you ejaculated a little early?

Incidentally, what do you make of Terry Lane's column in The Age today?

I'd wish you a Happy Christmas but I'm not sure you believe in all that pagan nonsense about goodwill to ALL men and women.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 24 December 2006 11:30:39 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
Citizenship is a privilege - especially in a high migration country like Australia.

The irony is that a TRUE Muslim will swear allegiance PRIMARELY to the Ummah (One Global Islamic Nation). Citizenship to the country of residency is just expediency – a means to an end :– the establishment of the Ummah under the reign of their Islamic god Allah ism Islam's primary goal.

So to call the Muslim terrorists of London “British Citizens” is cheer stupidity and naivety. They answered to the highest call of religious duty “Jihad” in the name of Allah and the example of their prophet Mohammad.

They acted "lawfully" and in accordance to their highest (Islamic) citizenship. That is why in Islamic circles the bombers are cheered as Heroes and remembered as Martyrs. They exemplify the best Muslim behaviour – to act in what they would call “self-defence” against a non-Muslim target – bringing honour to their god and prophet.

Christmas is the celebration of the birthday of the true God becoming man and living among us.

Jesus did not come to establish an earthly empire but to reconcile us to God His Father and to His Kingdom in heaven.

In Biblical terms, Islam is described as the spirit of the Anti-Christ and false prophethood. Islam goes against everything God has done in Christ on earth.

Islam’s goal is for all to convert to their religion and worship their god Allah.

Islam has no place in a secular democratic Australia – a country that was built (like it or not) on Biblical principles. It is therefore the MORAL responsibility of each Australian citizen to ponder upon the real polytical goals of Islam. (reading the Qur'an is a good start)

Accepting Islam as a “common” citizen among us is committing Australian SUICIDE by ignorance of the FACTS about that religion.

While we can still utter these precious words in relative freedom, I wish you All a “Merry Christmas”.
Posted by coach, Sunday, 24 December 2006 4:31:00 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 Helen,

Your statement here :

"Whether we intend it or not, we reinforce a sense of alienation and undermine the sense of community we want to create if we talk in ways that divide people, categorising them as insiders and outsiders, rather than stressing our commonalities as people.",

clearly should be directed to John Howard and all political leaders. It is they, Howard in particular, who seek to divide rather than unite. The total opposite of his job description.
Posted by RobbyH, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 7:04:58 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 wonder how many of the commenters here have ever been in a position where they were an immigrant non-citizen living and working (legally) in a foreign country? By the sound of things, probably none. Helen has a legitimate point but there is a deeper issue here .. why is it that Australians jump to assume that non-citizenship implies a person that wants to live in a country but reject everything to do with its culture? I have never met an 'alien' (in itself an offensive term) that not only chose to live here and leave their own country forever but decided to stay because they loved the country and its values. People who don't fit in with with the culture generally leave - its a truly miserable experience otherwise. Most non-citizens are denigrated and demoralized every day by immigration officials as they try their best to obtain citizenship in a country they desperately want to have adopt them as its own. Who then has the greater morality? The country that makes you denounce your own culture to obtain citizenship or the people that want so badly to become Australians?
Posted by Audrey, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 11:13:30 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
Audrey, my parents (and their families) were non-citizens working in THIS country, for half or no wages and this is their country of origin, birth and sovereignty.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 12:26:31 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
Boaz, for a minute there, in your point 2, I thought you were talking about George W Bush. Substitute "God" for "Allah".

"2/ The example of its founder who clearly showed that 'pre-emptive' attacks on those suspected of forming alliances against him and political assassination/murder are quite legitimate.

One can only conclude that taken together, we have a group which has as its foundation principle:

To make pre-emptive attacks against those who are cursed by Allah, deluded and away from truth, who are never to be taken as friends, and who by nature are hated by Allah, because they, by nature are against Allah's religion and are thus scheming by default how to destroy Allah's people."
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 5:09:46 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
I dig that Irving sought to separate issues of citizenship, a legal classification, from responsibility, a moral value.

The discussion that follows calls into question the secular value of tolerance-- a highly loaded term with practical limitations built into its definition, ie. the moral currency earned by people/groups/nations that go out of their way to "tolerate" other people/groups/cultures/nations, the hierarchy of authority this entails, and the network of expectations that now burden the "tolerated" party.

In the context of religion-- Beneath the rhetoric of tolerance, Islam, Christianity and Judaism ultimately know their God is better, and everyone else is going to hell. Extremist faith only dispenses with the jargon, and with it the aspiration of peace (a relatively valuable concept nonetheless...).

It is a shame Irving could not separate moral judgment from terrorist acts, and not only because it implicitly fortifies the state with moral righteousness it does not deserve. Islamism is the political deployment of Islam, and while bombers, network leaders and heads of state talk a rhetorical game of faith, the core issues are geopolitical, historical and economic. Religion is a great way to forge group identity and mobilise people, regardless of the truth of respective religious belief systems. Educated folks of faith should be able to see when their beliefs are being deployed for political ends, as the Archbishop of Canterbury demonstrated on 23dec. Islamic community support for acts of war/terrorism is real but it comes from material conditions, real occupations, real deaths, real poverty.

So if the ultimate issue is whether these strands can be separated and sufficiently identified under analysis and in retrospect, we need only look at Irving's article and the discussions that follow (incl. mine) to see how individual issues such as citizenship, moral responsibility, tolerance and terrorism function co-operatively, in the end, to kick someone's arse who doesn't agree with you, with the word or the sword or the acetone peroxide. No matter how politely you put it.

Merry Xmas/Asalammualaikum.
L.
Posted by Luke, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 5:59:32 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
What Luke said!!
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 8:36:36 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
Looking at the moral responsibility issue.
Most Immigrants I have met or know move to other countries are not there to try to undermine the system. They are there to be a contributing member of society and they are willing to do what ever it takes to do it.
Having lived on four continents I can speak from experience.
Where the system is flawed is the monitoring and structure.
The governments should not hinder your progression by putting up different rules for different. For example if I had technology available to me that can give a better and cheaper service for mobile phones to all Australians, I am not allowed to implement it until I am a citizen. It is not discriminatory, it is narrow-minded.
The criteria for citizenship or working Visa’s should be updated and enforced.
English being mandatory, education levels, etc maybe even an exam. After the exam there is pledge of allegiance, and the ceremony is over. Canada, US, UK, Germany, and others do it.
Not everyone needs to know the difference between rugby union and league. Realistically they should be able to read street signs, know what the legal drinking age is, know the national anthem, and have respect for local customs, laws and religious practices.
I believe if you violate those citizenship rights within the first 5 years, it can be revoked.
If you move to a country and you can bring in technology, knowledge, new ideas, or all and in doing so, create opportunities, jobs etc. This is a good thing. Applying as a refugee is really counterproductive as the lower paid jobs will be swallowed up by people who will work for less than half the amount.
This will create a problem. This creates a rift in the economy.
All systems are open for some type of abuse …
Close the gaps and let’s move on.
Posted by sundog, Thursday, 28 December 2006 4:52:42 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
Sundog has an utopian view of morality... teach migrants English, explain to them our rules,... and all is good...

That I agree could work for "Most Migrants" - unfortunately the remainder minority is definitely undermining our system, and no amount of policing is going to change that.

A full awakening and a vigilant awareness of this particular minority group are what is required to stop the propagation of this political system - disguised as a religious faith - which feels SO morally superior to the rest of us.

Their agenda is to impose their values on all the non-believers (in their system) because their moral values are the answer - they believe - to all our economic and social ills.

A country cannot survive for long when this cancer is spreading and left unchecked and untreated.
Posted by coach, Thursday, 28 December 2006 7:15:49 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
Not to worry Coach, John H has been recruiting extra ASIo staff, and more to come. Purpose? To monitor both the Chinese and Muslim communities. Perhaps you could ask that their use of language be monitored also. Although it will be anyway so don't panic.

Could I refer this quote from Martin Niemoller for your consideration :

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

At what stage will you and others like you try to speak up on behalf of others?
Posted by RobbyH, Thursday, 28 December 2006 5:51:43 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
Not to worry Coach, John H has been recruiting extra ASIO staff, and more to come. Purpose? To monitor both the Chinese and Muslim communities. Perhaps you could ask that their use of language be monitored also. Although it will be anyway so don't panic.

Could I refer this quote from Martin Niemoller for your consideration :

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

At what stage will you and others like you try to speak up on behalf of others?
Posted by RobbyH, Thursday, 28 December 2006 5:51:46 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
RobbyH

this is well said just like most here and most of the australian people

Could I refer this quote from Martin Niemoller for your consideration :

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

At what stage will you and others like you try to speak up on behalf of others?

For myself I am trying its just getting others behind it.

Email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Australian Peoples Party
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 28 December 2006 7:11:38 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
To Frank Gol:
“The UN is the least of our worries. Over the past decade it has been ineffectual in asserting moral or any other sort of leadership in a range of crises notably in the Middle East”

I disagree, the UN has been ineffectual in places like Sudan because they tell it to go shove-it ,& its intelligentsia see few benefits & much danger in siding with outside bodies (other than Al-Qaeda)

But in ‘progressive’ western nations there are multitudes of career-minded judges & politicians -who coveting positions in UN bodies & NGOs, are all too eager to commit us to UN covenants & use them openly, or surreptiously if necessary, as templates for legislation & decisions.

To RobbyH & Tapp:
Martin Niemoller's quote, variation in B major, performed by his Honour Justice High Principle & his orchestra of lobby groups:

When John Doe arrived illegally & without papers - I spoke up-citing our obligation under the UN refugee conventions.
When police said they suspected John Doe of mixing with illegal organisations -I spoke up- citing his freedom of association
When John Doe was arrested with illegal fire arms - I spoke up- citing it as an example of racial profiling & victimisation & had the case dismissed
But when John Doe blew-up central railway station killing hundreds -I was a home in my high security mansion sipping chardonnay, listening to Mahler -I said nothing - I am above counseling widows & orphans…
Posted by Horus, Friday, 29 December 2006 1:59:41 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
Horus

It took me a few minutes but i got it you are actually alexandra downer and you are talking about awb.

Its all ok when fighting for rights but if you do not do your homework then as you have quoted you much prefer to deny all liability.

Now you have to be a hipocrite that wont stand for the rights of oneself, your family,your children or the future due to being scared if you have made a mistake.

Well your mistake is not standing up and just waiting for everyone else to do it for you.

ChrisC if you are still around email me If you dont like what i have to say when i email then that is ok.Have not had problems with anyone else.

Email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

You may just be suprised, all you have to do is be honest and straight forward with me no catches.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 29 December 2006 2:59:11 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
Horus, you have it. Someone has the inner fortitude to say what most of think.
Australia should have ONE set of laws that apply to every citizen. Citizenship should [in this day and age] be made conditional.
If the new citizen breaks his/her oath, citizenship should automatically be withdrawn and expulsion follow with no appeal.
We have a great country with freedom known by few. We wish to keep it that way for every one.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:42:00 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
Isn't it interesting how the right wingers like to caress each when they celebrate consensus /agreement here on OLO. A kind of erotic ideological orgy of congratulatory fondling. You can almost hear them panting.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 30 December 2006 9:56:13 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
Horus,

Can you please enlighten your readers: exactly how do "multitudes of career-minded judges & politicians...commit us to UN covenants & use them openly, or surreptiously if necessary, as templates for legislation & decisions"?

When I last looked at the process, only the Australian government could commit us to UN covenants and only the Autralian government could use covenants as templates for Australian legislation & decisions. Has something changed?

What on earth is the connection you are drawing between the UN's role in Sudan and the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:34:53 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
For RobbyH

I try to remain optimistic by reminding myself that not everyone creates their own reality with words.

Hopefully, there will still be some palatable form of freedom and a democratic future if the majority of Australians can train themselves to objectively observe reality and then describe what exists with words.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 30 December 2006 11:42:38 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
Hooray for Horus

My suggestions for Horus.

First (or first in this century) war was declared on the infidels by the tall, bearded rich man on Al Jazeera TV. But the left wing media didn't see a brass razoo in the story and the news wasn't relevant to me because I only value pop or rap culture, plus Clinton was in office so the world was all safe and fuzzy wuzzy.

Second they bombed the Bali night spot. But I had been to Bali too, got Bali Belly and had no intention of visiting again.

Then they bombed the London bus. But I'm Australian and everybody loves Australians since we are so highly evolved compared to those gun loving, uncouth, uneducated Americans, therefore I felt safe, relaxed and comfortable (who said that?).
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Sunday, 31 December 2006 12:14:49 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
Cowboy Joe, all well and good, but it wasn't the Iraqis. They got the wrong man.
Posted by VK3AUU, Sunday, 31 December 2006 6:02:17 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 Horus,

Enjoy the world from your high security mansion. Crowded in there?

Your response is demonstrative of why there is so much wrong today. It's all about me, myself and I isn't it? Sneer at those widows and orphans while you are able.

What do you do when the chardonnay runs out? Will you trust anyone to deliver? Will you dare venture out and risk contact with those widows and orphans? I see a dilemma mate.

Cowboy Joe,

Are you willing to take action to try and ensure that hope? That freedon which is rapidly disappearing? You can you know, I just hope you are not too soured by society and life to remain on the sidelines. I know how easy it is to stay there, hoping things will change. For me they didn't, and haven't. They just continue to deteriorate and I have had enough, as Peter Finch screamed out the News window long ago.

If you can help just say and I'll give you an email address for further discussion.
Posted by RobbyH, Sunday, 31 December 2006 9:38:15 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
Horus, I'm holding my breath (still) and can't let go until you answer - or are you sqibbing it?

Can you please enlighten your readers: exactly how do "multitudes of career-minded judges & politicians...commit us to UN covenants & use them openly, or surreptiously if necessary, as templates for legislation & decisions"?

When I last looked at the process, only the Australian government could commit us to UN covenants and only the Autralian government could use covenants as templates for Australian legislation & decisions. Has something changed?

What on earth is the connection you are drawing between the UN's role in Sudan and the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:34:53 PM
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 31 December 2006 10:50:29 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
Aye Frank,
I acknowledge that only Aust govts make the law.
“ In Australia's case, it is necessary to pass implementing legislation through the Australian Parliament”

(Though I’d add as an aside that “progressive” judges often re-interpret established law in novel, previously unintended ways, & that the policies endorsed by a parliament are not necessarily those favoured by electorate )

My initial argument was rather that too many of our Australian politicians are eager to follow templates established in the UN.without adequately considering the long term affects on Australia.
“The human rights standards developed by the UN have had a profound influence on the national law of the various UN member states, including Australia“.
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/youthchallenge/unit1/stage2/resource_origins.html

And while we may not be LEGALLY obliged, many of our leaders are IDEOLOGICALLY obliged, or influenced by individual career & peer aspirations .

And as for : “What on earth is the connection you are drawing between the UN's role in Sudan and the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation?”
(By the way -10 out of 10 for the well rehearsed histrionics)
1) Re-read my original comment -in context, &
2) To help to clarify it further.Consider this Zen koan re the UN Refugee Convention (as an example). It is ironic that the countries most concerned about meeting their “commitments“ under this convention as measured by the number & volume of concerned politicians & prominent judges -nearing the end of their domestic careers- calling for greater intake etc ) are largely from the western world - other countries -many actually located next door to the source of the refugees-& culturally or racialy related to the refugees - have been largely quite -are either not signatories, or if signatories do not acknowledge they have any “commitments” .

Now if you cannot work the implications for yourself -then alas, your holding of your breath has already had an (detrimental) affect!
Posted by Horus, Monday, 1 January 2007 11:08:46 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
Horus, if I understand your English right, your answers come down to this:

1. Initially you said: "multitudes of career-minded judges & politicians...commit us to UN covenants & use them openly, or surreptiously if necessary, as templates for legislation & decisions". I asked how?

You now acknowledge that only Australian governments make our laws (I note your source - the HREOC website on human rights). But you still claim that (your words) ‘“progressive” judges often re-interpret established law in novel, previously unintended ways, & that the policies endorsed by a parliament are not necessarily those favoured by electorate’. I think that means (a) judges (whether progressive or conservative) do what judges have always done – interpret the law (and publish their reasons – not surreptitiously); and (b) that parliaments elected by the people sometimes don’t give some of the people (what you call the ‘electorate’) what they want. You end up saying that while the U.N, can’t impose laws on Australia, “many of our leaders are IDEOLOGICALLY obliged, or influenced by individual career & peer aspirations”. Got anyone in mind?

2. You then re-stated your initial argument: “that too many of our Australian politicians are eager to follow templates established in the UN.without adequately considering the long term affects on Australia”. And as ‘evidence’ you cite one selected sentence from the HREOC website.

3. Initially you gave an account of the UN’s role in Sudan and I asked how that connected with the claim that the UN is overly influential in Australian policy and legislation. You replied (a) that I should re-read your initial post - I have and I still don’t get the connection; and (b) you then offered an incoherent ramble about the UN Refugee Convention, “concerned politicians and judges nearing the end of their domestic careers”.

You suggested I should be able to work out the implications of your thesis for myself. Do you mean that judges and politicians are foisting black Sudanese refugees on us? I’ll hold my breath a little longer until you tell me I’m right.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 1 January 2007 12:51:40 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
FrankGol
It has been accepted for many years now (I thought it was common knowledge) that being a signatory to a UN convention does not require a vote by our parliament. One would think that this would be a major concern to those who believe we have a robust and functional democracy.

The fact is that senior federal bureaucrats have formal authority to act on the behalf of Australians -- generally, a year or two later the population wakes up to the fact and by that time the deal is done and dusted.

I am no expert on the issue but have listened (starting 10 years back) to a number of people articulate the process on talk back radio. No it wasn't the ABC or Stan.

The Convention on Children (something like that) and the Firearms Act are just a couple of examples of the manifestation of UN influence. Hopefully, some of the silent experts who read On Line Opinion could list some of the others for us.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 1 January 2007 4:48:42 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
Cowboy Joe, what is this, Dis-information Week? You admit to being “no expert on the issue”, and tell us you rely on what you call “common knowledge” and what you heard on talk-back radio “starting ten years back”. On that basis you kind of know with certainty maybe that “The Convention on Children (something like that) and the Firearms Act are just a couple of examples of the manifestation of UN influence.”

No-one is hiding the facts, Cowboy. They really are common knowledge and you can find more reliable sources than talk-back radio. Try official websites like
www.dfat.gov.au/un/aus_un3.html or
www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/FC93E323D6D76BBACA256FCC001BA335?OpenDocument

By free choice, and only by free choice, Australia can enter into international treaties that are binding. One such is a resolution of the U.N. Security Council made under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Two examples are Resolution 1540 which obliges Australia and all other members of the U.N. to take action to eliminate and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and Resolution 1373 which obliges Australia to freeze terrorist assets.

However, the majority of resolutions of the U.N. are not legally binding on Australia and don’t automatically form part of Australian domestic law. Obligations under a treaty don’t apply within Australia until and unless the Australian Parliament enacts enabling laws incorporating these obligations into domestic law. The Australian Parliament can if it likes pass laws contrary to international laws.

So if, as you say, there anonymous senior bureaucrats out there wandering around signing us up to laws we don’t want the whole of Parliament can soon put things right Cowboy.

Now what's this nonsense about the Firearms Act? By popular acclaim that law is regarded as John Howard's most positive achievement in ten years. It was the Australian Parliament which overwhelmingly supported it. What the heck has the U.N. got to do with it?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 1 January 2007 9:30:45 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
Frank,
True enough, Australia is not (YET) legally required to applying UN conventions –though if trends continue as they are, it will only be a matter of time before that is the case.

What is noticeable is while many in the community have a sense of international responsibility.There has NOT been a popular groundswell pushing our leaders to sign such conventions.It has rather been motivated by backroom discussions amongst their peers & select lobby groups.And it’s more extensive than an issue of having “black” refugees foisted on us [ nice try Frank!]

Most in the electorate are not even aware we have signed the conventions, until they are told that we cannot do this or that, or must do this or that because of our "commitments".

Every time a UN agency report comes out criticizing some or other aspect of Aust administration –a raft of notable personages & organizations call for us to step into line, and almost invariable adjustments are made .

This may be Ok for people on the left who have always tended to believe in a directed democracy anyway-as long as its leftist directed -(i.e. there are certain issues that are too important to be decided by the electorate) -but its rather scary for the rest of us.
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 5:25:54 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
Horus, you've cracked it. It’s all a left-wing conspiracy: “only a matter of time”, “backroom discussions”, “select lobby groups”, “rather scary”, “directed democracy”. The left can’t win an Australian election so instead they infiltrate the U.N, and surreptitiously usurp the powers of the elected Australian government on the grounds, as you put it, that they believe “there are certain issues that are too important to be decided by the electorate”.

We’ll have to get Mr Howard to issue new fridge magnets: BE ALERT - FOR LEFTIES AND THE U.N
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 1:38:08 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 FrankGol

Excuse me for having an OPINION on Opinions on LIne and then having the audacity to honestly admit not being able to currently produce the specifics. Maybe this forum should be renamed, Academic Papers on Line, may suit Frank's standards, which he can presumably meet.

The topic is tangential but you have self righteously asked the question. Note the year.

PS our legislation is virtually unchanged from the draft that hit the parliamentary desk 3 days after Port Arthur. Efficiency?
News Release 9626
Gun Control Advocates
at State of the World Forum
From: Political Intelligence Review and Newsletter
Date: October 5, 1996
Of approximately 500 participants in the State of the World Forum are a substantial number of supporters of global collective action through international organizations such as the United Nations.
The United Nations is currently working on a project to "harmonize" world gun control laws, work that is being funded by Japan and largely staffed by Canada. Gun rights policy leaders have warned that President Clinton will use the United Nations to "back door" severe gun control laws in the United States through U.N. treaties. They say that "harmonization" of U.S. firearms laws to conform to the laws of other nations under U.N. treaty would be unconstitutional and would render the Bill of Rights meaningless.
The most famous of Forum gun control advocates is Gorbachev himself. As a top Soviet leader, Gorbachev supported and enforced Article 182 of the Soviet Penal Code, the main law requiring strict gun control of the Soviet and Russian people. About 20 million anti-communists and anti-Stalinists died under Article 182 and related laws between 1929 and 1959. Communist Party domination depended upon a monopoly of the ownership of firearms. A logical method to achieve this monopoly was gun control laws enforced upon the general population.
In today's Russia, the general public remains disarmed and helpless, while hoodlums, Communist Nomenclature and other criminals rampage.
Other well known advocates of gun control at the Gorbachev inspired Forum includes cable television executive Ted Turner and Marian Wright Edelman, a close friend of Hillary Clinton. http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1996/pirn9626.htm
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 2:33:44 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
Horus may have cracked it, but I think Cowboy Joe is just cracked.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 3:45:35 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
Cowboy Joe

We all have opinions. Some are based on better information and clearer argument. Just as you are free to challenge other opinions on this forum, I am free to challenge your opinion (but not your character). At the end of the day, we go to bed having had our say. What’s the problem?

Thank you for sharing the opinion of the foreign gun lobby media release dated October 1996. It suggests that some people tried to warn that President Clinton was conspiring to introduce severe gun control laws in the United States using U.N. treaties as a "back door".

Two questions if I may ask:

Did Clinton actually make this happen in the US?

What has this - or the Gorbachev conspiracy - got to do with Australian gun laws?
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 10:03:02 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
What the heck has the U.N. got to do with it?

This was your question Frank, but you seem to have latched on the least important point. The UN has a policy of banning firearms from civilian use which answers your question. Issues such as these need to be viewed as a process not with finality. Evidence is there if you choose to look for it.

At some point one of the main issues becomes cost/benefit. It is fairly clear that Australia's 500+ million could have been better spent on mental health. NZ never had a registry and Canada is getting rid of theirs due to the minimal return on the enormous investment of public funds.

Tuesday, 24 October , 2006
Daniel Hoare
"TONY EASTLEY: The introduction of Australia's tough new gun laws in 1996 has done little to reduce the rate of gun murder or suicide, according to a new report. And it says the $500 million buyback of guns after the Port Arthur massacre, where 35 people were killed, has had no effect on the homicide rate.

The study, prepared by Australian pro-gun lobbyists and published in the British Journal of Criminology, argues that the money spent on buying back more than 600,000 weapons would have been better spent on a public health campaign."

Not only was the study published it was peer reviewed and accepted the Journal mentioned is a preeminent body beyond reproach. Not only that the Australian Inst Criminology has reported the same. I recall a recent newspaper survey stating that 97% of Australians think the laws are strict enough but the anti-gunners continue the politics of fear. Who benefits? Not the public because they believe they are safe enough.

The UN has been and is still trying to take firearms of civilised law abiding people in western countries while genocide reoccurs at a mind numbing rate in Africa.

Our own governments can be unresponsive when they are elected by us. Why in the hell would any rational person feel the need to be dictated to by the UN?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 8:30:04 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 think it's essential to look at immigration as giving and getting with a caveat. Australia requires+migrant seeks=new citizen is not the end of the equation. There is a culture in place(no matter how much you hate your culture), there are laws that need to be followed(no matter how much you hate the idea of any social restraint), there is a form of government(no matter how much you hate your leaders), And for those not born to a nation there is the oath of allegiance of citizenship or to nation(no matter how much you hate your fellow citizens). Every new immigrant family or nationality has had to prove itself to those already there. Prove their committed to citizenship by word and deed. It's not that filthy Australia. It's human nature and takes place every where on earth when a "foreign" person goes to live among a "established" society.
It's one thing to import your culture, which can bring about a period of social readjustment, it's another to import your cultural strife and hatreds and spread it among your new community as by right of citizenship. No new culture, no new nationality, no new religion, no new individual, is going to walk in and run the show. Showing up means zilch. Proving ones allegiance, ones value to community and defense of the totality of that nationhood achieves that nations embrace.
If you think you can walk into another country or any culture and be accepted by virtue of simply showing up on the doorstep your either delusional or have never stepped outside your own culture or country to be more than a tourist.
Keep in mind that all rules and regulations are in defense of the acts and attitudes of the exception, and are then impressed upon the whole as a result of those few.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 6 January 2007 2:44:47 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
Cowboy Joe, my last post asked two simple, direct questions:

(a) Did Clinton actually make this (U.N. dictated gun reform) happen in the US?

(b) What has this - or the Gorbachev conspiracy - got to do with Australian gun laws?

You tried to answer another: What the heck has the U.N. got to do with it? And, sadly failed to provide a convincing argument.

Instead you cite a single study - on your own admission, prepared by Australian pro-gun lobbyists - that claims to find that Australia's tough new gun law has done little to reduce the rate of gun murder or suicide. And that the money spent on buying back more than 600,000 weapons would have been better spent on a public health campaign.

Then you finish your post by again asking the rhetorical question: Why in the hell would any rational person feel the need to be dictated to by the UN? It seems you are arguing that because "Our own governments can be unresponsive when they are elected by us", it must be because of the U.N. Did the U.N. steal our rocket launchers? Are they propping up that well-known anti-gun hero John Howard at the expense of Peter Costello?

Now how did Gorbachev get into the action?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 6 January 2007 1:10:49 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
A few points -

Ireland suffered from terrorism for decades, yet they never allowed their civil rights (habeus corpus, presumption of innocence, right to trial by jury) to be railroaded. The US on the other hand...

Coach - I'm curious. You loyal to your god before Australia? Also note that there are various inflections in words such as Ummah. 'Jihad' for instance, has been taken out of context multiple times - often by muslim militants themselves. Jihad may not always mean holy war - at other times, it can mean the conflict with self, and the distractions which drive one from Allah, and from your fellow man. Of course, this conflict isn't nearly as attention grabbing as 'holy war'...

I wasn't born in this country, but I've lived here since I was nine years old. I've been working full time and supporting myself since I was nineteen... I contribute to the public sphere, and I am an Australian citizen. I vote.

Does the fact that I was not born here mean my opinion is less valid than that of a fifth generation Australian? I sat no test, but quite frankly, I tend to think being an Australian citizen isn't something you can be quizzed on in a simple multiple choice.
It is something you learn from being here for a certain period of time. Last time I checked, that was the requirement.

Make no mistake. This test is about politics and populous pandering.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 8 January 2007 2:07:33 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
Back to the roots of this discussion, a reader if having it understood properly, appreciates an article’s notion very much.

With broader approach to an issue, a publicist quite practically points at a London terro-act, not bothering to dig into a very cause of this particular event which is a mere reflection on instantly discriminated and humiliated on biological basis non-Anglo subjects of English crown.

Leaving an option to extradite en-masse own non-Anglo-Saxon-Celtic population not happy for being to the best a pool of underpaid slavery-style lackeys-in-generations serving a higher race of UK-linked-biologically native English speakers, the Howard’s government rightfully acts in accordance to elective majority’s wishes.

And foreigners-that is British subjects living in Australia- have a passive elective right in this UK semi-colony.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 10 January 2007 11:31:47 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
Is that lingo pigeon universityeez, Michael?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 11:38:16 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
From "Believe in Your Country" by Stompin' Tom Connors:
"If you don't believe your country
Should come before yourself,
You can better serve your country
By livin' somewhere else."

Now, how many people enter Australia each year because they weren't willing to serve their own country? How many will be willing to serve Australia?

If you don't have any sense of loyalty to your country why get upset and feel betrayed when business leaves for better climes? Why should the guy with the money to invest have to answer to a higher expectation than the citizen or new immigrant? After all. Australia may be the new home of the citizen of convenience. As long as it doesn't cost anything and there is no expectations to up hold. It's a nice place to hang your hat. Well, as long as my needs are being served that is.

Looking for a job next year? Try China or India or Turkey or ....
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 11 January 2007 2:32:01 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
MichaelK

Please accept the following with good-will.

Whilst I can empathise with some of your postings, I sometimes have difficulty comprehending what it is that you are trying to say. I assume that English is not your native tongue. It almost appears that you are writing with some strange Thesaurus at your elbow. If not, then please cast aside the dictionary or whatever you are using and place your reliance upon some more standard reference for your translation into English. Failing that, please get someone more proficient in English to proof read your script.

If you do so, I can assure you that your postings will be more likely to be taken seriously particularly by peasants such as Cowboy Joe and Aqvarivs.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 11 January 2007 8:33:33 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've been toiling the fields tending my cucumbers, the Lebanese ones as they are less acidic, zucchinis, chives and basil that I planted yesterday and will be trying to get my Postie Bike started this avvo. I've already taken the Organic venison out of the freezer for tonight’s BBQ.

I must be a peasant, growing my own veggies, hunting my own protein and repairing my own mechanical devices. Surprisingly, my B Sc degree is on REAL sheepskin, fancy that. I thought lefties liked peasants, so go figure.

Most degree holders historically defend Multiculturalism by pointing out the good ethnic food we take for granted, that didn't exist in the past. However, ones I have informed about Paul Sheehan’s book Among the Barbarians ISBN 009 183636 0 have little response when the historical truth is revealed by an insider... a former staunch Labor Party member who let the cat out of the bag. It was for the votes. Not sweet and sour pork or falafel or butter chicken but VOTES so who really are the peasants (uneducated) now?

It appears commonplace for tertiary educated snobs to continually repeat concepts they were taught as if they were mantras. My view of a truly educated person is one that has learned how to learn and has some objectivity about core issues. An educated person doesn’t think in slogans that were spoon fed at university.

Try another adjective VK3AUU as I do not think you were referring to my agrarian tendencies. My level of education is not dependent upon your preconceptions of an educated person, ie one who thinks like you do. This unpleasantness is called democracy, remember?

I'm a migrant, dual citizen, and if it were not for our migrants who still know what a real day’s work is, we would have a much lower standard of living than we have at the present. I would like some reality to permeate the issue. Reality defined as what we observe and experience not the creation of reality with multisyllabic PC buzz words.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Thursday, 11 January 2007 2:04:59 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
Cowboy Joe and VK3AUU, if you pretend not understanding English it is your problem.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 11 January 2007 7:48:03 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
No MichaelK... I'm afraid your use of english is rather unusual. You string together complex terms with insufficient linkages to make sense.

"not happy for being to the best a pool of underpaid" ? Erm... for being to the best?

Perhaps... not happy for being, at best, a pool of underpaid?

"extradite en-masse own non-Anglo-Saxon-Celtic" this connection is flawed.

Hmm... extradite large numbers of Australian minorities? or perhaps, extradite en-masse, Australians other than Anglo Saxons or those of Celtic descent?

If English is your second language, then I apologise for what may seem like callous remarks, but I don't believe it is fair to blame others who are having a tough time deciphering your statements.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 12 January 2007 9:51:17 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
VK3AUU extends the hand of goodwill, empathy and tolerance by sending a heartfelt & lengthy but genuine message of support to Michael.

In return her hand is bitten. Is there a lesson here?

In the past the main roadblocks to good communication were poor speakers and poor listeners but everything is more complicated today.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Friday, 12 January 2007 10:09:42 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
Cowboy Joe, my apologies for my intemperate reference to your peasantry, after all, my father was a cow cocky and I have similar qualifications to yourself. I was chief chemist at a well known mining establishment in the N.T. back in the sixties after which I also spent some time farming, since retired. You have my gender wrong, but that is of no moment. Our dyslexic friend seems to be past redemption, but as a last resort, I will refer him to
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/ and http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/forms_unrest/ROGET.html
although the latter uses Webster's Dictionary as a source, so some spelling is non British (which he will no doubt applaud as he seems to eschew all thing British)

TurnRightThenLeft Thank you for your input. It seems that we have in our midst, a "Wordsmith" who wishes to rewrite the English language (particularly the rules of grammar) for which he has an apparent disdain.
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 12 January 2007 11:01:09 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 had got a very good mentor in report-writing. Experienced at a top international level, boss shared her wisdom with me, telling that everything can be written with appropriate words.

What understanding of such wording might be comprehended by missing even a gender of forum participants, TurnRightThenLeft?

And URLs are of a practical interest as sometimes Word for Windows provides no "treasures" for unknown reasons.

However, VERBAL SPOKEN English rather then writing is of concern while recently linking citizenship with linguistics.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 14 January 2007 11:35:30 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
My apologies if I have offended, that was not my intent. I was merely pointing out that blaming others for an inability to understand those posts may not be fair, as there were flaws in sentence construction.

That being said, I can appreciate the irony of pointing out such flaws using a dot point format. Especially as that format made the prose somewhat difficult to understand.

MichaelK - by and large, your use of terminology appears to be on the mark, but in my opinion, your connections between concepts is where your language appears to be less than clear.

I am not entirely certain what you refer to in relation to gender and understanding.

All I am saying, is that it isn't fair to accuse others of deliberately ignoring the message of your post, when perhaps it wasn't deliberate at all.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:37:53 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
You must apologise for nothing, TurnRightThenLeft, as you missed a point of more comprehensively present posts on gender issue already, and pointing “out that blaming others for an inability to understand those posts may not be fair, as there were flaws in sentence construction” is as well seen unpractical as I blame none – it is a deliberate ignorance of not belonging to a particular clan of oppressors as already stated on these pages, not misunderstanding of writing surely.

Back to URLs, they are not easy to use but rather of promotional nature. Thank you anyway for broadening my far from perfectness English skills.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 17 January 2007 1:59:38 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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