cont'd ...

Dear Antiseptic,

All opinions are formulated by what one hears and
reads to a certain extent, and the best way to express that
opinion in full is by quoting the source from which
it was obtained. This enables others to read the cited
text in full and makeup their own minds.

Dear Antiseptic,

Yes you sweet man. Tis me.

Looking for quotes?

Try your local library.

I think what Graham is getting at is that even if you say something that's true about a particular ethnic, religious or racial group if they find it offensive you could be in hot water.
I think that in the context of this debate it's important that we draw a line between a "Show Trial" and a "Kangaroo court".
The Bolt trial was a show trial, it was very much about sending a message, that's not to say any impropriety occurred, the proceedings were all above board but they were conducted in a very controlled way.
There is a point to be made about the role of nominally "Jewish" advocates and activists in so called "human rights" law, I'd rather not speculate on why that may be, for obvious reason but let's just point out that it's an area of legal specialisation that seems to attract them.
Jewish advocates are good at picking their battles, they'll take down someone like Fred Toben because he's a clown and a show pony who'll come out with some moronic soundbite virtually on cue.
They don't take on David Duke because he's articulate, well informed and is capable of diverting their message, or of preventing outright the dispersal of the message that these trials are supposed to send.
Bill Noble, in his "Hate trial" in Canada remained mute throughout the proceedings save to point out a fault in the testimony of his Jewish accusers, his few sentences all but destroyed their case and the media buried it, the message had been tainted so the trial lost it's "show value".
Anyway at the risk of stepping onto further thinning ice I'd advise anyone who has a point to make about "Jewish" human rights advocacy to tread carefully, better yet keep their musings to themselves unless they are prepared,as David Duke says, to have the Hounds of Hell unleashed upon them and their families.

Antiseptic, Graham,
Just do some googling on Chabad Lubavitch, look at criticism of the organisation by Jewish commentators as well, but as above, it's a subject best avoided lest it come back looking for you.
Also interesting are google image searches of the keywords "Kevin Rudd Rabbi" and "Kevin Rudd Imam".
I make no assumptions or statements based on those results but the obvious direction people will look look would be the criticism of the John Howard/Exclusive Brethren relationship.
There's no difference at all in the two scenarios, Howards philo Semitic Zionism is merely complimented by his support of Christian Zionism, he could hardly function as a Zionist without working with both groups.
Ah I better take my own counsel, as I say to young people who want answers to the Jewish questions,don't go looking for trouble, if you're pro White or pro Nationalist it'll find you soon enough.
You'll get not a word more from me on this issue.

jay..quote..""what Graham is getting at..is that even if you say something that's true..about a particular ethnic,religious or racial group..if they find it offensive you could be in hot water.""

mate i just read..what grayham said
he specificly said..*race

not catholholics..not muslim..not zionist..not neocon
[unless they include..a vilification of..'A'..race]

se mate we smokers arnt a race
we bikies arnt a race

we bloggers arnt a race

i wish i ccould have sued under race vilification[and defamination when we had the 'debait'..with all those lies about smokers..

or about the druggie vilification
and then the ridicule i cop for loving god..[but that isnt race either]

race is a specific thing...[im not even sure a semite is a racial term under the act]..not even sure..that nationality is a 'race'

races are presumably a narrow field
that if not defined specificly..[in the act]
voids the act into many generalities

so lets hear what race..is IN THE ACT
negroid is a race?

then you got the other race..caucasian?

and asian..[as said repeatedly
ab/origonality is a generic lable
[were all abo from somewhere]..there is a racial lable on native people from these lands..[australis..some/thing something]

escimo..or american indian..might be races
we got the northern type races
the dark skined semites..*might be a race

BUT..

[continues]

Jay, I'm afraid it is not good enough to tell me to go off and do your research for you. Either you cough up the exact relationship of the judge to the Chabad or I am going to take the post down where you refer to it and probably suspend you because it all takes too much work chasing down sources for someone who refuses to provide them, but who, if they have done the work sufficient to meet the judge's standard of "good faith", must have them.