There seems to be a degree of misinformation in the public arena which believes that "human rights" law is to be applied equally to all.

The Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has just been given a new power.. "The right to intiate actions in the absense of complaints" Could this possibly create a 'star chamber' where the VHREOC compiles a 'list' of politically unfavorable entities which are singled out for 'special treatement' ?

I would like to know if there are those among us who believe that such laws should be applied equally to all...or should those 'equality' laws in fact discriminate against certain perceived 'power groups' in the interests of raising the power level and status of minorities?

Are "Human Rights" the same rights for all...or just for some?

Are they a tool in the hands of certain elements, to actually implement a different agenda.. say Socialism?

Is the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in fact 'universal' ?

If, for example... a power structure existed in our society which held a) view that human rights/equality laws are not mean't to be applied universally and b) Had the power and position to impose an unequal applicatio of such laws...

What is the likely outcome ?
Which body(ies) might that be ?
Who's interests are served by such an imposition ?

Please show and support your position by examples..

It always intrigues me when religious types oppose human rights and processes to ensure that they are observed. What do they have to hide?

Of course human rights laws should apply equally to all. Why should some people have more rights than anybody else?

I think that the amendment to allow the initiation of investigations without a specific complaint could work well in cases where human rights abuses exist and people could be victimised further by being identified. Think of what happens to 'whistleblowers' currently.

There are many areas where complaints may not be forthcoming despite widespread knowledge of a problem such as in the illegal sex trade and trafficing area. I suspect this is the sort of thing this legislation has in mind where complainant are not forthcoming due to fear and enslavement.

While we should all be wary of the potential for government's to abuse these powers for some political agenda I think most reasonable people know the difference between villification and criticism.

I don't believe this means one won't be free to criticise the teachings of Islam just as a secularist will be able to continue to criticise the School Chaplaincy program or RE in public schools.

The Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has just been given a new power.. "The right to intiate actions in the absense of complaints" Could this possibly create a 'star chamber' where the VHREOC compiles a 'list' of politically unfavorable entities which are singled out for 'special treatement' ?
--

Well such a star chamber has already been created [outside the Constitution] by the CSA in their self created COAT process [ie their Change of Assessment Team process], which "grew another leg" as RICAT [Registrar Initiated Change of Assessment] where CSA allows themselves to snoop on deadbeat dad bank accounts or whatever and then apply their process [which operates outside of Rules of Evidence] to the victim, with no comeback at all, or in fact no recourse to a proper court [despite what High Court said in Brandy about such processes being illegal].

So IMHO such a star chamber is doubly bad because of the "power to initiate" and the actual process. As the High Court said in the Lemah Meat case, it would love to initiate a suitable case for the court to argue that there IS a Privacy Tort [so someone PLEASE give us a vehicle]. Of course no one ever has or will so govt departments get away with gross abuse of the Privacy Act simply by pasting their "Privacy Policy" on their web site.

There is no such thing as a Privacy Policy, you simply obey the law.

So if any one is to Initiate action let it start in the High Court or at least a Chapter III court under Constitution and not just another feminist quango

DivorceDoctor, it is always about the nasty feminists with you isn't it?
I would suggest that the 'deadbeat dads' you talk about would not need any extra departments to look into their financial dealings if they just paid what they are due to pay for their kids upbringing.

The male politicians who agreed to set up this department are keen to get all the financial gains they can for children of broken relationships so the Government doesn't have to fork out as much.

Why don't you take up your beef with the predominantly male politicians
who voted for this department?

Dear folks.. encouraging contributions so far showing both the dangers and potential problems.

CJ.. you are a serial pes-....oops..I mean...misunderstander.... I am not opposed to human rights at all...I am opposed to their selective application by politically motivated (and appointed) people who are more interested in social engineering and 'abolishing the white race'
http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html ...than they are in equality and justice equally for all.

For those who are interested... please check this out..it's highly worth a read.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=news/national-lottery-exposed-vicious-anti-black-racists

OH...those horrible 'anti black' lottery people.... disgraceful and disgusting.....

Pericles...this is your queue...

*drum roll......* speak..NOW.

I'm beginning to worry about you Boaz. Your political trajectory has taken a distinct lurch towards open Fascism since your latest reincarnation.

Mind you, it has its upside. You keep introducing the thread to the yucky dregs of the Internet, that you carefully scrape from your shoe for our amusement.

You must have searched rooly, rooly hard to discover http://racetraitor.org.

It hasn't been updated for many years, for one thing.

Mind you, that's hardly surprising, 'cos nothing that it says makes a lick of sense.

Here's a typical sample:

"For us, being white is not a skin color but a state of mind, and accepting the privileges of whiteness. We think that if you fight as hard as you can against those privileges, even to the point of risking your own ability to receive them, then you are on your way to becoming unwhite."

(Incidentally, I did spot a letter of support from the Australian Greens while I was browsing the site. Now we are all totally confused...)

But seriously, parading excerpts from the BNP web site is showing your colours just a little too much, I fear. Especially an article such as the one you pointed out, which is based on a premise so weak that it is laughable.

"A search on the National Lottery recipient list under “White” produces 0 results"

Of course, it never occurred to you - or to the BNP - to explain that there might actually be no causes or charities that specifically pertain to "whites".

This may be for a number of reasons. Apathy, perhaps. Or simply laziness.

Or - just perhaps - there isn't any need for a charity devoted to providing services along the lines of the "White Justice Project".

Possibly because - just perhaps - "whites" have already got all the justice they can handle?

BNP are just rabble-rousers, Boaz. England has a long history of them. They are practically part of the furniture. It might simply be down to the miserable weather, a way to keep warm.

But they are most definitely not to be taken seriously.

Another aspect, that of course the BNP does not highlight, just in case it interferes with their sneer campaign, is that the UK National Lottery has to date disbursed £24 billion to various projects and charities.

"Good Causes", they call them.

http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/goodcausesandwinners/wherethemoneygoes.ftl

Which puts their list of donations to various entities with labels that include words such as "Muslim" and "African" - that they intended to be seen as utterly scandalous (shock, horror!) - into some perspective.

Add up all the donations you see there, Boaz, then calculate it as a percentage of the "Good Causes".

I know you won't care to do the sum, so I'll do it for you.

0.4%

Shock! Horror!

I've just spent ... well, allocated ... the morning to reading up on "freedom of speech" in Australia. Turns out, it was only a two coffee read. Isn't any, excluding regarding politics. Coincidence?.

Sorry, bit off topic. Carry on...

Dear Pericles.. thank you for your perspective..except the bit about me *lurching toward fascism*...that was of the standard of the now totally discredited "Islamophobia/fear hate loathing" rubbish you always trot out after lifting not a single keystroke to verify information provided.. quite contrary to the IMMENSE amount of discovery and research you did to debunk the BNP claim...

Care to indicate your deep deep reasons for this passion against 'fascism' but your complete apathy towards the darker aspects of Islam ?

When it comes to 'where the money goes' you need to dig a lot deeper than just the web site 'broad statements'... you need to examine the political networks which administer them.
If you look closely at where..and the demographics.. the voting trends.. etc.. it might reveal a slightly different piccy than the one your sand trowel managed to uncover.

Your quaint idea that the absense of any 'whites' this or that charities or projects is not an indication of apathy but of ABSENSE of any idea of white supremacism or priority.

http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk/results.asp

The fact that the lists of funding for specifically racist or race/religion based groups is an indication of their narrow race and/or religion based focus when it should be NATIONAL rather than racial. In saying this we are back to my old mantra "citizenship" not multiculturalism.

The RACE TRAITOR site has not been updated ? HAH! youuuu bet 'it' has.. but not that specific one... see the local version...

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/

"Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association"

Ignatiev's thinking has spawned lots of mini 'race traitor' groups and that's one of them.

PS...I'll support the BNP until the bigger parties wake up.. as the Liberals did with Hanson. She served a purpose.

Hi STG... sorry to clutter the thread with 'Pericles Management' housekeeping.

Freedom of speech.. try us on your results?

I am going to make a rather broad assertion now.. (with capitals..sorry)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS... are a marxist socialist overlay of discrimation and oppression against majorities (mainly whites)!

Here's how I got there.

Numerous valid complaints are made to Human Rights commissions..which are rejected on purely 'subjective' grounds.. ie.. picking and choosing those which support minorities and rejecting any which might support majorities, the traditional population.

One has to ask.. "why is this so?"

I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on that.

EVIDENCE. Apart from my own experience which I won't detail here. Canada is the best example of where it all goes haywire.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/canada-non-muslims-human-rights-complaint-against-the-quran-dismissed.html

The key words in that re this topic are:

//But B.C. Human Rights Tribunal member Barbara Humphreys says Simpson didn't explain how the Koran, the central religious text of Islam that has existed for more than 1,300 years, had a negative impact on him.
Humphreys dismissed the case after ruling that Simpson's complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.//

HUH ? "the purposes" ? errr...I thought they were to protect people from ill treatment..discrimination,..hate speech and so on.. "impartially".

It doesn't matter if it's "islam/Muslims"... what matters is the underlying 'intent' of these star chambers.

These commissions of inquisition are the closest thing to true fascism we have today.
Global Governance is at the top of their agenda. Their legal people are constantly undermining Australian sovereignty making submissions to that effect.. trying to overturn Australian law in favour of International Human Rights law.

Al
No group deserves to be discriminated against but at some point in our lives we all do experience some form of prejudice.

You asked: "ie.. picking and choosing those which support minorities and rejecting any which might support majorities, the traditional population. One has to ask.. "why is this so?"

It might have something to do with the fact they are the minority and hence have less protections, solidity and position in the community than the majorities or traditional populations as you put it.

Remember the old joke about democracy - three foxes and a rabbit discussing and voting for what they have for dinner.

Who will look after the rabbit's interests.

Al, I am not condoning loose legislation on this, there has to be a balance between freedoms, rights and protections that can support the 'commonsense' approach while addressing the concerns you raise.

Er, Boazy - if you're going to continually refer approvingly to the BNP website, it's hardly surprising that reasonable people might surmise that you're "lurching towards fascism".

I think that the fact you whinge so much about enforceable human rights is further evidence of that lurch. Who's worried about the assertion of human rights except those who want to limit them?

"HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS... are a marxist socialist overlay of discrimation and oppression against majorities (mainly whites)!"

Please name just ONE predominantly white society where the white majority is somehow oppressed by a non-white minority.

Better still, a predominantly white/any coloured society that doesn't have an oppressed or disadvantaged minority of any kind.

And as for that endless collection of vague evils you generically call socialism, I suppose you've never been to a public school, hospital, library or driven on a public road or collected a pension or government payment of any kind?

Fascism is no solution to whatever is bothering you either.

Better up the dosage on whatever medication you're on.

I've never seen anybody so addicted to being outraged by anything and everything at the same time.

Dear Pelly
it's now 6.27 am and that fox rabbit thing was almost too much :) Almost cost me my milo.. but very well put.

The thing is..the analogy has a few weaknesses.

a) It assumes "white" Aussies are 'foxes' just waiting for a chance to eat the migrant or non white rabbit.
b) It assumes that rabbits have no desire to become more 'foxlike' :)

I think, that if a rabbit knows the nature of a fox.. it would do what it could to embrace 'fox' culture to avoid being seen as "one of dem wabbits."

But limiting the discussion to humans. Rather than just exacerbating 'difference' by taking the legal stick on the whites approach, would it not be better to take the 'emhasize unity, participation and citizenship' approach ? Rather than rewarding 'maintainance of traditional culture' (did you see the list of groups who stood out by name in an earlier post (the Lotto) ? http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk/results.asp please have a peek.
Just think "Does this kind of thing actually promote unity or..create suspicion and resentment"? Or even "can it be USED by certain interests to promote disunity and resentment?"

The common sense approach is very clear.... treat all groups equally.
"that" is my gripe... they arn't.

There is this strange notion that only minorities are treated unfairly.. so..punish the majority be default.

Wobbles.. white societies ARE being 'oppressed' by the law and also by academia. Did you actually see that now 'whites' are an object of scientific/academic 'study' ? "Critical Whiteness studies".

This ties back to 'Abolish the white race as a social construct' (Ignatiev/Acrawsa)

I, being 'white' don't take kindly to people seeking to treat me as some kind of object for academic marxist study which has a goal of removing any 'power structure' which I might by my color be a part of.
It assumes that such 'power structures' are inherently evil. They arn't. In fact...by and large they are not even conscious of 'race'.

CJ... you are on 'timeout'..goto your corner and sit!

sorry to suzyonline

I teased your feminist hormones and you forgot to read the gravamen of my learned post, so I'll try again for you but DO pay attention this time.

Well such a star chamber has already been created [outside the Constitution] by the CSA in their self created COAT process [ie their Change of Assessment Team process], which "grew another leg" as RICAT [Registrar Initiated Change of Assessment] where CSA allows themselves to snoop on payer bank accounts or whatever and then apply their process [which operates outside of Rules of Evidence] to the payer, with no comeback at all, or in fact no recourse to a proper court [despite what High Court said in Brandy about such processes being illegal].

So IMHO such a star chamber is doubly bad because of the "power to initiate" and the actual process. As the High Court said in the Lemah Meat case, it would love to initiate a suitable case for the court to argue that there IS a Privacy Tort [so someone PLEASE give us a vehicle]. Of course no one ever has or will so govt departments get away with gross abuse of the Privacy Act simply by pasting their "Privacy Policy" on their web site.

There is no such thing as a Privacy Policy, you simply obey the law.

So if any one is to Initiate action let it start in the High Court or at least a Chapter III court under Constitution and not just another quango.

continued, for suzy

I took the OP post at face value, ie a very serious violation OF our "human rights" BY a quango supposedly set up to adjudicate on complaints by persons BY application to their tribunal ie NOT also as a policeman, [reds under the bed it has been called] who actually INITIATES the "complaint".

As we see the thread got taken by the "usual suspects" on a fox and rabbit chase, but at least there is hope YOU might actually think, and maybe come out with some ideas.

You see people over thousands of years have actually gone to war to protect/put in place "systems" of human rights, and in layman terms we call it "the right to one's day in court" [with formal rules of evidence]. As Kirby J put it when family court counselling tried to do what is seen here: [see Harrington & Lowe]

"Depart from those pre-conditions and what is done can not stand
for it is forbidden by the Constitution"

You have a very odd perception of my response to your ramblings, Boaz.

>>...that was of the standard of the now totally discredited "Islamophobia/fear hate loathing" rubbish you always trot out after lifting not a single keystroke to verify information provided.. quite contrary to the IMMENSE amount of discovery and research you did to debunk the BNP claim...<<

Of course I look at the "information provided".

Which, in the context you allude to here, is invariably some quote from some dude about some verses in some ancient scripture or other. And as I have tried to explain to you on occasions too numerous to mention, I have absolutely no time for those opinions, nor for the scriptures they refer to, whatever their source.

And you cannot "verify" someone's opinion, Boaz. You can only agree with it or disagree with it.

But the part I continually object to, just in case it had escaped your notice, is not the quote, nor the scripture, nor the source of the scripture. It is the way that you wilfully employ this material to further your anti-Muslim cause.

As to the "IMMENSE amount of discovery and research you did to debunk the BNP claim", it took two clicks and less than five minutes.

Which is of course what you fail to do. Every time.

In fact, do you ever look behind the words you write? Or do you just expect us all to nod approvingly at the headlines?

>>If you look closely at where..and the demographics.. the voting trends.. etc.. it might reveal a slightly different piccy than the one your sand trowel managed to uncover.<<

Notice the key weasel-word, Boaz?

"might"

Of course it "might".

Pigs "might" fly.

If only they had wings, etc.

But why did YOU not do that research, before you went to print. And why do you continually object, when I do it for you?

Here's my suggestion.

Before you next get on your high horse about the simple facts I dig up following your next BNP-booster "observation" - YOU do the fact-checking.

Novel, I know. But it might work.

Al

Hope you have resurrected your milo. :)

The foxes example was to ask what do we do for the rabbit in those circumstances. The foxes don't represent white people (they could be any group), but in that scenario they represent the majority.

White people aren't out there in the populace trying to be racist toward minorities for the most part.

My father got called a wog many times when he first emigrated to Australia, his English was poor but improved rapidly. He would be the first to say don't make a law banning such comments (for example), people for the most part can be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong over the 'nanny state' having to play mother.

I tend to agree for the most part, but can see a case for some protection in the worst of cases where racial villification is continuous, harrassing and constant with great negative impact on someone's life.

My father got called a wog many times when he first emigrated to Australia, his English was poor but improved rapidly. He would be the first to say don't make a law banning such comments

--

well there IS a "law" [ie legislation] to give your father relief from any discomfort, BUT he must make an APPLICATION to seek such relief.

That was NOT what the OP purported to winge about though. Like we all know that there is a tribunal/quango [formerly called Pru's Place] where one could plead a case under Racial Discrimination and Lonely Dog Act [or whatever it is called this month] AND if you like/dislike what the NON beak decided you can go to Federal Magistrate Court to get a REAL Chapter III beak to set it in concrete [or reverse it].

But it does NOT allow that Tribunal Registrar to hear about your father's complaint at the pub and INITIATE the action without your father even knowing.

THAT is what the RICAT does, and worse still it is done without rules of evidence and without recourse to a court [apart from being contrary to the Child Support Assess Act].

THAT goes further than the Spannish Inquisition and borders on Nazi dawn raids. For mine, I fought "the Yellow Peril" for democracy and not for anarchy.

and by a huge coincidence that is exactly what the Leading Case of Brandy was about, ie good old Harry Brandy of ATSIC calling another abo "an abo".

Pericles....so you DID actually look at the info ? good...that's progress.

Now.. just a simple question.

CHILDREN OF GOD... you would also be aware of their practice and approval of.... the very same thing which your 'on the quiet' examination of the 'information' I provided revealed.

Would you describe the exposure of such vile behavior and BELIEFS....to be 'COG-a-phobia' and "inciting fear hatred and loathing" of the COG ?

Just a reminder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69S2fI_GAzo&feature=related

Or...would you consider that something in the public interest?

Notice the reaction of the children when they realized what material the interviewer had! "oooooh..your not supposed to have that..it's supposed to be kept secret"

Well.. I don't care if it's the COG or Islam.. or Hinduims or Buddhism.... I believe it is in the public interest to be aware of such things.

BNP ? I don't need to check that stuff, the situation is way out of control and the simple 'fact' of such things as a 'Black' Police Association and a 'Muslim' Police Association are as racist as they come...and are inherently anti white...and are premised on the belief that 'white' Police are structurally racist rather than simply existing as human beings who happen to be white.

BNP=KKK minus the funny bedsheets.

Both have the same political aims, both make the same phoney claim of being "white victims within their own societies" and both attract the same disgruntled, lunatic-fringe attention-seeking followers.

Anybody with an axe to grind about anything can find sympathetic support and understanding from this type of organisation.

Or maybe it's all just some sort of Marxist(?) plot to take over everything and everybody for some yet-to-be disclosed purpose.

Enjoy your paranoia. Faith may move mountains but the whip built the pyramids. Despite everything else, the white man is still the one holding that whip.

No Rache..the BNP is not a marxist plot.. but your cynicism about 'white' victims is a bit uninformed. If you had been keeping track of British social trends...court cases... police actions.. and government policy.. you would hesitate to be quite so forthcoming on that score.

Please let me know your thoughts on this rather striking headline?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Why would 'labor' want to 'deliberately' dilute the traditional British identity?
Could it be for the simple issue of 'votes'and keeping power ?

Are you aware of this ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7473683/Union-behind-BA-strike-receives-18m-from-taxpayers-in-money-laundering-deal-with-Labour.html

Keep in mind..the Labor 'responsible action' in giving PS 18,000,000
to scumbag communist led union UNITE (I think Pericles is a secret member) for what ? "to improve management and training for its members."

THAT...when the Treasury official leaves a note for his incoming replacment "sorry there's no money left"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23834716-george-osborne-names-june-22-as-emergency-budget-date.do

CORRUPTION.. the list of Labor Con Dem corruption reads like the who's who of wall street.. it's a disgrace.. would you defend them?

And you have the gaul to criticize the BNP ? :) come come... they left that 'national front' stuff behind just like Australian labour left their 'socialst' principles behind.

Labor and Conservatives have ZERO credibility.. the BNP does actually have some. UKIP might be worth consideration also.

I'll ignore for the moment the arrogance and condescension dripping from your post, Boaz, and respond as if to a normal person.

>>Would you describe the exposure of such vile behavior and BELIEFS....to be 'COG-a-phobia' and "inciting fear hatred and loathing" of the COG ?<<

Not at all.

Children of God are a sect, and a fairly iffy one at that. I believe that exposing their weird lifestyle, especially where it could uncover criminal activity, is totally appropriate.

But once again, you are confusing yourself with the attempt to draw parallels with - I assume - Islam.

Your past behaviour suggests that you are attempting to equate the implications of paedophlia inherent in the COG video, with the "teachings" that you, personally, ascribe to Muslims.

If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me, and tell me what your purpose really was.

What I see in the Children of God is just another cult.

A bunch of fringe-dwellers who - just as you do, Boaz - justify their actions on some unique and personal view of their religion. There are many of these, some harmless, some downright dangerous. And they exist at the edges of any religion, which they use to justify their actions.

In Australia, for example, we have a bunch who call themselves the Exclusive Brethren, who hold quite specific views about marriage, the status of women within marriage, mixing with "non-Brethren" etc. Probably in there as well is the instruction to inflict corporate punishment on young girls, who knows.

But I have to say that I am personally against sects of this type. Principally because they use religion to scare children into seeing life through their parents' distorted lens - as was clear from that video.

But unlike you, I am against them all, regardless of any particular religious affiliation.

But seriously, Boaz, it is probably about time you stopped pretending to be some kind of expert on UK politics. It is far more subtle and nuanced than your armchair black-and-white analysis could possibly comprehend.

If you continue to use the resources of the BNP web site as the fons et origo that guides your thought processes, you will inevitably look very silly. As you did with Barking.

Try an experiment sometime. Instead of diving straight in to the BNP view of life in the UK, look at some competing ideas, then form an opinion that is actually your own.

It will take time, as there is some significant political depth over there, covering many centuries of thinking people.

But you really should give it a try.

Here is a starter pack for you, courtesy of Keele University.

http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/por/ptbase.htm

Let me know how you get on, won't you.

Good grief.. I am back managing Pericles.. well..I'll make this a short one.

You said:

//"Your past behaviour suggests that you are attempting to equate the implications of paedophlia inherent in the COG video, with the "teachings" that you, personally, ascribe to Muslims.//

No Pericles.. for the gazillionth time, you keep on replacing "Islam" as a set of ideas with "Muslims" a group of people.

I was showing how one set of ideas (COG) translated into unlawful and despicable behavior.

Then I showed a similar set of ideas..which IF they had the freedom from our laws to practice WOULD also translate into descpicable and inhuman behavior.

You can call it as you see it... it all begins with the ideas....doctrines..and in this case, now that you have admitted to reading the material.. you jolly well know what it's all about.

You also know that the same conclusions were clearly found by a NON religious poster.... and any honest person reading the same material will also arrive at such conclusions.

Which raises the question..."Why" do you not so conclude and/or if you DO happen to be able to demonstrate something around oh.. primary 6 comprehension...you don't come out and concur that such teaching is abhorrent.

You play the 'COG' is a cult/sect..but Islam ? :) oh come Pericles...
the only reason the COG did not become a force like Islam is because they didn't fight against and win against the establishment.

Had they done so..those ideas would be the norm wherever they ruled.

You are your own worst enemy on this.. if you simply stayed quiet..I'd be saying only about half what I end up saying to manage you.

"You" don't need to defend the COG or Islam or Buddhism or any faith... they can stand or fall in the public arena like all others.

On the BNP ? oh my.. yep.. u got me.. I immerse myself in 'their' web site..and I NEVER ever EVER look at other material to confirm or dispute what they say.. yep.. busted ... well...that makes as much sense as your bluster.

You said ZERO about the sins of Labor Cons Dems.. ZERO.. and this is an indictment on your prejudice 'young fella'

18,000,000 to UNITE ! ! ! ...and you are raving hysterically like a frantic white-a-phobic Nick Lowles or a Labour Troll on the HopeNotHATE BUS,...waving your piccy of Gordon Brown ...apparently your hero.

I already pity you.. don't drive me to something stronger than Milo for goodness sake.

Care to comment intelligently on the ethics of that Unite contribution ? :) The BNP have.. surely you can do better.

Well Al, I wouldn't be paying too much attention to what the UK Telegraph says, considering it's support for the Conservatives over there and anti-Labour Stance in particular, earning itself the local nickname of "The Torygraph".

A bit like expecting Alan Jones to start spruiking for Rudd perhaps.

You're the one who seems to think something's happening for some diabolical reason and is being drawn to the BNP like disaffected Aussies were to One Nation a while ago. Are they being "swamped" too?

So, if it's real - what's the REAL reason and who's behind it?

Now now, Boaz, don't get so agitated, it's not at all convincing.

>>you are raving hysterically like a frantic white-a-phobic Nick Lowles or a Labour Troll on the HopeNotHATE BUS,...waving your piccy of Gordon Brown ...apparently your hero<<

At some point you are going to have to confess that you haven't the faintest notion as to what goes on in UK politics. The evidence from this little rant is that you cannot even get your insults pointed in the right direction.

Just like you misread Barking.

But on to more serious matters, that you are supposed to actually know something about: Christian cults, and their fear of Islam.

And Muslims.

>>No Pericles.. for the gazillionth time, you keep on replacing "Islam" as a set of ideas with "Muslims" a group of people.<<

You can't pretend that Muslims do not follow Islam, nor deny that you deploy the word "Islam" on every single occasion that you would like us to share your fear.

You apply the same nefarious objective - the dominance of all other religions - to them all. As individuals. At every opportunity. Otherwise, why all those carefully-selected verses that you keep bringing up?

Incidentally, you would be far more convincing if you were able to leave out the conditionals from your fear-mongering.

>> ideas..which IF they had the freedom from our laws to practice WOULD also translate into descpicable and inhuman behavior.<<

They haven't. And they don't. Why do you suggest they would?

>>the only reason the COG did not become a force like Islam is because they didn't fight against and win against the establishment.<<

You're kidding. Even by your own standards, that's a pretty rocky piece of logic. The reason that COG - and all similar cults - does not become a "force" is because they are fringe organizations, operating at the very edges of the law. As and when they are exposed, they will be snuffed out.

Pesky Pericles.. surely there is none like you :) *rolls eyes*

*You can't pretend that Muslims do not follow Islam,*

Wellllll..what an admission. An admission which shows the true dimensions of yor utter hyprocisy.

You know jolly well that the behavior permitted by the Quran is inhuman and degenerate.. you know this full well..because you HAVE read the material. You have also seen it clearly understood by a "non faith" based person.. who just had to read it.. the Quran and the interpretation by an Islamic scholar...

but

What do you trot out ?

//nor deny that you deploy the word "Islam" on every single occasion that you would like us to share your fear.//

Not fear Pericles...*contempt*..righteous indignation.. in the public interest (as such behavior is unlawful), -abhorrence...and lawful action to oppose such insidious and nefarious (thanx) values growing in our society.

The truth is Pericles.. I've hardly said 'boo' about "Islam" lately.. Proxy said more than enough for 10 of me...I've just chirped in from the sidelines about 'methods and reasoning' among the rationality-challenged like you and CJ.. now..I'm just reacting to your own pokings. But I'm keeping your manic hysteria on a short leash..I didn't come back to hammer away at "Islam"

RACHE..aah.. a refreshing change :)

Sure..the 'ToryGraph' is one thing... like the Terrorgraph in Sydney.

But ask yourself this.. WAS there a payment of PS18,000,000 given to Pericles favorite Union "UNITE" by Labor ? or not....it's a simple issue of fact..not where or by whom it was reported.

The details are in the story... it was spread over a long period..from 1998...they didn't hide that. Of course the headline kinda skews the spread. It is still factual.

I'd love to have an hour or 3 going through trends in the UK with you.. coffee ? :) kidding.. the BNP are a strategic tool..they are as prone to corruption as any party which has humans in their ranks.

RACHE.. let's continue our discussion out of the playpen with Pericles.

You said:

//You're the one who seems to think something's happening for some diabolical reason and is being drawn to the BNP like disaffected Aussies were to One Nation a while ago...
So, if it's real - what's the REAL reason and who's behind it?//

The 'diabolical reason' is really very simple.

1/ Look at the level of corruption and abuse and self serving on 3 sides of UK politics. "Convervative, LibDem and Labour"...
This tells us something about the beasties running the show.

2/ Look at their ideology and action.

a) Labour depends largly on the 'migrant' vote.
b) That includes a significant number of Muslims.
c) You can see how they (Labour) have tried to "manage" information, and even terminology to suit that agenda.

In short.. it's just about power.. control..and self serving.

They way I see it at the moment is that the Labourites know where their electoral toast is buttered. Thus.. in order to retain power..they pander to that. This means that laws.. policies will all be seen as a means to that end.

OVER-RIDING IDEOLOGICAL FORCE. Yes..there is one. It seems to be this.

"Keep me and my mates filthy rich... while we all 'look'and 'sound' like battlers for the working class, the migrant and the poor."
The Goal is Global Governance... but only a type which enhances existing power and wealth. ie..it is a CAPITALIST trick :) using socialist methods/ideas to trick the weak, naive and ideologically vulnerable.

LITMUS TEST.

Why would the residents of Barking re-elect (totally against the national trend) a mega rich woman, Margaret Hodge, when she and he millions have not done squat to address the problems of the region ?
Sure..they might have opened a swimming pool here or a childcare centre there...but only within that context of 'keeping us rich & powerful'

Diluting British national identity is one of those methods.

If that's the case Boaz - and I do take leave to doubt it - then you are not doing a very good job of it.

>>I didn't come back to hammer away at "Islam"<<

Would you like to take another look at the very first post you made under your new Invisibility Cloak?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3651#87939

The topic?

Islam.

The angle?

You warned us of the dangers of allowing Muslims to breed.

>>...it might well point to a number of scenarios such as "Muslim fertility vs non Muslim" and the eventual overtaking of the original community... The bigger concern for large numbers of "Mo" ["Mohammeds"] around is the possibility of electoral control in specific community interests<<

Face, it Boaz. You have history on this. And changing your name from leopard to fluffy kitten is not going to change your spots.

As for your "re-born as BNP cheerleader" act, you cannot divorce their nationalist rhetoric from their rampant xenophobia. Which once again places you under the "he's up to his old tricks" spotlight. Illustrated neatly by your inference from Labour strategy that...

>>Diluting British national identity is one of those methods<<

Fortunately, it is crystal clear to all - not just me - that you haven't a solitary clue about UK politics, and are instead using the blunt instrument of BNP to continue your personal vendetta against Muslims.

Incidentally, given your protestations that you "didn't come back to hammer away at 'Islam'", how do you justify this little segue?

>>a) Labour depends largly on the 'migrant' vote.
b) That includes a significant number of Muslims.<<

Why, exactly, do you consider the "significant number of Muslims" relevant?

Your little snipe at "a mega rich woman, Margaret Hodge", by the way, is just a little odd, when we have our own, home grown "first family" of mega-rich Rudds, and a recent mega-rich leader of the opposition.

I personally believe that MPs should volunteer their time in service of the Australian community, so the richer the better, in my view.

But that wasn't your point, was it?

Pericles: << Fortunately, it is crystal clear to all - not just me - that you haven't a solitary clue about UK politics, and are instead using the blunt instrument of BNP to continue your personal vendetta against Muslims. >>

Absolutely, and he's being as dishonest as ever in the way he goes about it. Hilarious though how he projects his own "manic hysteria" and "rationality-challenged" worldview on to those of us who call him on his ignorance and hatred.

Interesting theory Al, except that Labour lost very badly in the recent election and for many reasons.

Why further deliberately antagonise an already angry electorate?

I agree that all sides are potentially corrupt but the notion of carrying out a secret social engineering plot in order to get a job ruling the world one day is a bit beyond the limits of reason.

Most political corruption is on a personal level and is for quick cash, a cushy future job and/or paying back favours.

These people are ex-Shop Stewards, Ambulance Chasers, failed suburban barristers or ex-Party apparatchicks and I really don't believe they are capable of thinking that far ahead.

Diluting British National Identity?? Wow!!
Now which particular identity would that be?

That one from 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
How about the one from the Enoch Powell White Power days of the 60's when the Pakistanis were number one on the immigrant hate parade?
Not because of their religion but because of them taking all the lower paid jobs.

As the Beatles sang (tongue-in-cheek) during their unreleased Let it Be Sessions,

"Don't want no Pakistanis
Coming over here
And taking all the peoples jobs.
Get Back
Get Back
Get Back to where you once belonged."

Most reactionary conservatives long to go back to the time of white picket fences.

You know - when men were men, and women and blacks knew their place.

Unfortunately, when Ritchie and the Fonz were living the American Dream, a couple of States away negros were actually being lynched. I bet they don't miss the good old days.

The truth is, you can't go back because everything changes. The world will be as different tomorrow from today as it was yesterday.

Maybe you think Apartheid is something worth revisiting?

There's always somebody to hate, blame or fear. It automatically makes some people feel like a better person by default and there are always people out there willing to capitalise on that sentiment.

Dear Rache.... this is turning into a reasonable discussion.

You said:

//I agree that all sides are potentially corrupt but the notion of carrying out a secret social engineering plot in order to get a job ruling the world one day is a bit beyond the limits of reason.//

At least we agree on the first part.. "all sides" but potentially? hmm I'd go a bit further than that.. I'd say "The evidence in clear" that those for whom it was also 'beyond reasonable doubt' have resigned in disgrace or been simply shamed into retreat by overwhelming and believable events.

It's rife among Tories, Labour and LibDems.
The BNP has their own colorful goings on..like their Web site designer allegdedly threatening to kill Griffo.

We cannot escape the human condition I'm afraid.

My approach is really pretty simple. SWOT

Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats.

The last part of my quote from your post....

"secret social engineering plot in order to get a job ruling the world one day is a bit beyond the limits of reason."

Actually.. the article showed it was not a secret any more. They planned the dilution.. "Forced Multiculturalism"... from a Labour insider.

We should be asking "Why?". Well.. I believe it has one simple answer "Power" or.. the means to it.

Why? because a particular group has one or more of the following motivations:

-Keep power/gain more ...because it feels nice to be on top.
-Protect and further financial interests connected to the holding of power.
-Ideological... a world view which believes the world should be run a certain way (in the case of Labour.. we might guess that's 'Socialist')

But I believe there is more too it. *This* is where I get a bit speculative about 'conspiracies' :) As to whether people get together and actually plan this ? I dunno.. the usual suspects are -Bilderburgers
-Rothschilds
-Illuminati
-Council on Foreign Relations.
-Fabian socialists
-Freemasons.
-Jooooos.

Me?..I just look at what's happening and say to myself "Hey..this effects ME and mine... let's DO something about it!"

But Rache..(continued)..

I've noticed some very weird events going on in the USA of late...which some adventurous people might call a 'conspiracy' :) others would call it base corruption.

1/ George Soros.... recently ramped UP his share holdings in PetroBras (Brazilian oil producer) to around $900,000,000 (his biggest holding)

2/ Obama's gang just promised/loaned $2,000,000,000 yep..billions, to that same company to do the very thing he has just banned in the USA.
"Deep water off shore oil exploration" (BP's troubled well was 5000 feet deep.. Brazils is 14,000 feet)

3/ SOROS founded the "Centre for American Progress"

4/ The CAP formulated:

a) Obama's Transition team.
b) Obama's policies.

http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/PodestaJohn.html (3rd Paragraph)

//Most recently, Podesta served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition, where he coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees.//

I outline this more fully in another discussion.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3741#91096

Oil disaster in Florda, Obama Bans drilling, who wins? :) hmm could it be.. Petrobras and it's major shareholder Soros?(and his Democrat connections)

My own assessment of it all..whether UK or USA or Australia, is that 'capitalists' masquerading as 'socialists or Greens' are all Watermelons who plan to stay or become much much more powerful over time.

WE DO have a voice though. They can try to baffle us with BS, but we can still vote.

ELECTIONS COMING UP :)....

For me the answer is strategic voting. (and as many as I can persuade of it's value)

Small parties without HUGE vested financial interests are more likely to have a genuine agenda... think *balance of power*

Without wanting to sound mean.. I'm an enemy of the Greens, but not all of their policies..just the ones which dovetail with the scenario above.*DANGER-BEWARE*

DLP ? hasbeens.
One Nation? Past use-by
Demo...who?
Family First ? yep..thats' my choice.

You are rambling, Boaz.

In this your most recent incarnation, it appears that you are using OLO as an outlet for your daily, unabridged and unedited, stream-of-consciousness.

I suspect you may have too much spare time on your hands.

>>Actually.. the article showed [the secret social engineering plot] was not a secret any more. They planned the dilution.. "Forced Multiculturalism"... from a Labour insider.<<

One disaffected Labour swallow doesn't make a conspiratorial summer, Boaz.

But from this rather thin gruel, you fashion a confection of rich complexity, like a Masterchef bouillabaisse.

>>But I believe there is more too it. *This* is where I get a bit speculative about 'conspiracies' :) As to whether people get together and actually plan this ? I dunno.. the usual suspects are -Bilderburgers -Rothschilds -Illuminati -Council on Foreign Relations. -Fabian socialists -Freemasons. -Jooooos.<<

Speculative is good.

Arm-wavingly loopy also fits.

Pericles.. you are turning into a serial 'annoyer' :)

One dissafected labour swallow ? Make what you wish of the reports... it's all good.
Here's something to show how equal opportunity is alive and well in good ol England....(but not forever)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY5_Pfg1S1Y

Gee... now that was in Downing street. Hmmm.. I wonder how it would go over if such a thing were to occurr in Spring street or Canberra at Parliament house.

But..hey. as you said.. One disaffected labor swallow(or a few scruffy and loud Muslims) ... etc.

I suppose one Profit hungry "kindly old man" who's foundation virtually picked the team and wrote the gameplay is nothing but a 'mere swallow' :)

Perilous..I keep telling you.. people do read this stuff.

Have a nice arvo anyway..you deserve it. You do keep me on my toes.

OH.. here is another tidbit.. *throws*....plonk. http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/

Periwinkle... I'm just catching up with recent UK events. :) my the BNP have been very busy.. it looks like they must have donned "Islamic" garb and impersonated a bunch of "Islamist thugs" at (guess where? :)....

Why Barking of course.. and they must have done this just to cause "pro bnp paranoia among the residents"

What else could explain this behavior ? *waves*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGr4DVD4buI&feature=related

I'm glad that my contributions are so appreciated.

>>Pericles.. you are turning into a serial 'annoyer'... Have a nice arvo anyway..you deserve it. You do keep me on my toes.<<

But really, you're on a hiding to nothing on this topic, I'm afraid

You know so little of UK politics, that you think a demonstration by forty Islamic youths in Barking is a significant event. And that the presence at the same rally of a hundred or so junior fascists is somehow indicative of fundamental unrest.

The problem is, you have no understanding of the word "fringe", when it applies to radical elements of a political movement. This would be because such things don't happen in the Melbourne suburbs, and therefore take on a highly magnified importance in your mind when they happen half a world away.

Your fascination with such topics does you great credit, of course. Eventually, if you studied it for long enough - and maybe even took a trip over there to get a first-hand impression - you will understand it all a little more.

The UK has always had its protest industry. Back in the sixties, characters like Tariq Ali and Colin Jordan represented the two political bookends. They were noisy, colourful, but fundamentally harmless, because they did not represent any form of mainstream view. And as a result, life somehow still managed to creak along

If you are serious about researching fascism in the UK, I suggest you start your studies with Colin Jordan, who came to prominence in the late fifties onwards. It would help to read Oswald Mosley's autobiography "My Life" as well.

Some more pointers for you:

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazi_parties.html

If you are able to find the time, you will discover that these current scuffles have had a long history in the UK. They are part of the political and social furniture. Probably, they form an essential safety-valve for dissent, which is what a tolerant and inclusive society is all about, n'est-ce pas?

They are only remarkable because they contrast so vividly with the she'll-be-right apathy we find in our ultra-suburban Aussie backwater.