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 > General Discussion > Racism in Australia

Racism in Australia

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 44
  7. 45
  8. 46
  9. All
Once again racism seems to be raising its ugly head in Australia. As a people who in the past have at least shown a minimal degree of tolerance towards people of different ethnic backgrounds, we now appear to be incorporating racism into the Australian ethos. I’m not only talking about the silly antics of a couple of ‘Bimbos’ on a Queensland bus, towards an elderly Aboriginal man. Nor am I only talking about the disgusting pamphlet distributed by the Labor Party against Carolyn Habib in the SA election, as serious as that is too. What is most disturbing is that powerful sections within the Liberal Party, namely The Institute of Public Affairs are demanding the repeal of a controversial section of the race discrimination laws.
Following Attorney-General George Brandis appearance on the ABC this week I am concerned with the Abbott governments approach to racism and particularly the laws that protect people from racial vilification. Brandis said: ''In a free country, people should have the right to say things that other people find insulting or offensive or wounding’’ Brandis seems to be condoning hate speech based on race and/or ethnicity. Later in the week Brandis rightly took the opportunity to condemn the ALP for its “Habib leaflet”. It is interesting to note that SMH columnist Richard Ackland points out that back in the 1980’s when he was involved with the Free Speech Committee in Sydney; no right-wingers then could give a fig about free speech. Suddenly today the right-wingers from the influential IPA have become all concerned about free speech, or more likely the use of hate speech with impunity
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 15 March 2014 2:34:55 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
paul1405,
I must say it's been quite a while since racists have been bleating racism. Well, I suppose one can't expect them to be quiet for too long.
What is this time ? Worried that people can't use racism as an excuse anymore ? Surely it's time to move on & invent a new catch-cry don't you think ? Just as the whole community has settled down there come the likes of you tearing at the old scab & rubbing salt into the wound. I for one can't fathem why you wouldn't want it to heal ? Beats me.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 16 March 2014 3:42:44 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
Imagine an Australia ruled by the Greens!

Paul 1405 would be looking over your shoulder checking you didnt read anything racist.
Paul 1406 would be vetting your posts to ensure you didn't write anything racist
Paul 1407 would be hiding under your bed checking you weren't racist in your choice of sleeping partners
And they would all report to Christine 0001
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 16 March 2014 4:03:53 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
Paul, tell me, if i were to pass comment about the lay about drunken Aboriginies that frequent the parks and shops at Weipa, AS THEY DO, Remembering now, I would only be referring to those particular dole budgets, nobody else!, would i be racist in your eyes, or, would i simply be telling it exactly as it is.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 4:36:53 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
rehctub,
I don't know if you know about Geman Jack but that's one that will always go against the Weipa outfit hanging around the Pub. I wonder how Paul1405 feels about some drunks getting away with murdering a long term patron. He probably had no money too buy them a beer.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 16 March 2014 4:43:00 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
Also Paul, if i were to mention a group of ethics who rampaged our streets of Sydney and terrorized our own people, to respect our laws, OR LEAVE, would you class that as a racist comment from me, or once again, would i simply be telling it like is was.

This country is in danger of being forced into a corner simply because we cant protect OUR WAY OF LIFE and practice OUR PEACE LOVING WAYS simply because outsiders and bleeding hearts would rather support the ways of radical ethnic groups, AND LAYABOUTS who's life mission is to instil hurt onto others which sometimes sadly involves their own kids, nephews and nieces.

If by me saying, THIS IS AUSTRALIA, LOVE IT AND LOVE US AND OUR WAYS, OR LEAVE, or, by saying, the least you could do with your tax payer funded GIFT, is to repect the tax payer and use it as intended, is seen as being racist, then im a proud peace loving genuine Aussie racist!
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 March 2014 4:48:06 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
Paul,

People should have a right not to be threatened or have malicious lies told about them or their group. Immunity from well-founded criticism should not be a human right. Anti-vilification laws like this definitely put community harmony above freedom of expression. Truth is not a defence, and the tests for the defences that do exist are vague and thus very much up to the individual judge.

You might consider the Catch the Fires Ministries case under Victoria's similar religious vilification law, where some Christian pastors were convicted for statements made at some seminars they ran on Islam, although the conviction was overturned on appeal.

http://www.law.uq.edu.au/documents/qlsr/recent-issues/vol3/issue1/Klose_2010_vol3_i1.pdf

" The criticism by Nettle JA [an appeal judge] of this approach is compelling:

" 'Whether [Pastor Scot’s] statements about the religious beliefs of Muslims were accurate or inaccurate or balanced or unbalanced was incapable of yielding an answer to the question of whether the statements incited hatred or other relevant emotion. Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs.109'

"Neave JA, while agreeing that it was ‘unwise... to assess the theological accuracy of what was said at the seminar’, nevertheless thought that ‘balance or accuracy’ could be legitimately considered in evaluating whether conduct was likely to incite hatred under s 8.110 Her Honour cited the historical example of Jews being vilified for using ‘human blood for ritual purposes’ as a case of misleading statements being used to incite hatred.111 But this example only confirms the analysis of Nettle JA: such a statement incites hatred because the ritual use of human blood is thought to be abhorrent, not because it is untrue. The statement would equally incite hatred (and thus satisfy the test for vilification under s 8) if it were an accurate claim."
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 16 March 2014 5:28:37 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 Paul,

I watched George Brandis on that particular episode
of "Q and A."

I guess that as a society we have to ask ourselves
"What is acceptable speech and what isn't in the
public sphere?"

Our laws should be a reflection of our values.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 March 2014 5:35:38 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
I have no problem with someone telling me they saw a group of drunken Aboriginals causing havoc at the local bottle shop.
What I don't like is someone telling me that ALL Aboriginals are drunken lay-a bouts who cause trouble wherever they go.

I would be sad, but would not be angry with someone telling me they had seen a group of Lebanese youth attack and bash an African youth.
What I don't like to hear is that ALL Lebanese (or Muslims or Arabs or Africans) are violent and should be banned altogether from Australia.

Does anyone see the difference here?
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 16 March 2014 6:21:58 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 Suse,

Point well made!
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 16 March 2014 6:41:20 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
Suse totally agree. My view is, people should have the right to free speech. People should be free to make statements which include references to race or ethnicity. What I object to is racial vilification, where statements are made which are simply designed to vilify a whole race of people with stereotyping or generalisations.
On Q&A Brandis appeared to be condoning racial vilification by masking it as the right to free speech. Brandis is using this line to repeal racial vilification laws.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:26:14 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
Suseonline, "Does anyone see the difference here?"

Yes, I do when you imply as you so often do that all men are violent b@stards who spend their lives controlling women.

Perhaps discrimination is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps too, 'discrimination' should be returned to its previous common usage before it was hijacked as a term of abuse by political correctness.

Political correctness is the difference and it is abhorrent.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:33:28 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
Paul,
As one who advocates against the ideology of multiculturalism and the illegal boat arrivals, I have been called most things. Very common is 'racist' and 'Xenophobic'. So I know just a little about it.

Intolerant and even bigoted I may be but it does irk me when people change the meaning of the word 'racist' in attempt to further their argument. I noted that susie used the word muslim in her post. Islam is not a race. Muslims come in all shapes, sizes, ethnic and skin colours. So to be critical of muslims, buddists or Christians is not racist.

To be critical of a persons conduct, a culture or a religion is not racist.

A year or so ago, there was much publicity about Indian students being attacked on trains in Sydney and Melbourne. The students themselves, the police, politicians and the media were quite happy for it to be called 'racist attacks' with anglo Aussies as the culprits. This even extended to the Indian media which gave Australia a bad name there and the parties mentioned above were happy to let this be. Later it was revealed that the attackers were gangs of Lebs in Sydney and gangs of Africans in Melbourne. Even so it still was not racist attacks because the motives were robbery, as the Indian students were easy targets. My opinion of the Indian student spokesmen, the police went down because they knew who the attackers were, but did not say and the politicians and media were happy to see Anglo Aussies wrongly get the blame. With such spineless politicians it is little wonder our laws are not enforced to protect girls from FGM, underage and forced marriages.

I advocate stopping further immigration of those groups that, because of their culture, cannot or will not integrate and have demonstrated this to us. Some of these have been here for 3 generations and still practice alien ways to our societies standards. Selective immigration on cultural grounds is not racism.

There should be penalties for those that wrongly cry or claim racism.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 16 March 2014 9:38:08 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 Banjo,

I think you are a racist but I also think it is worth exploring the word, its definitions, and whether it can justifiably be applied to you.

Perhaps we can start with an easy one.

You happily assume the mantle of a bigot.

Bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

And I think the rest of us is comfortable with that being a fitting definition of you. But as you can see it potentially encompasses racial and religious groups.

Racist : The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

You wrote;

“So to be critical of muslims, buddists or Christians is not racist.” Yet you neglected to include Jews. Why?

“The Nazis defined Jewishness in part genetically, but did not always use formal genetic tests or physiognomic features to determine one's status (although the Nazis talked a lot about physiognomy as a racial characteristic). In practice records on the religious affiliation(s) of one's grandparents were often the deciding factor (mostly christening records and membership registers of Jewish congregations)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling

There is a strong case to be made that the Nazis were bigots first and foremost and used race as a convenient vehicle to further religious and cultural aims, much like you do here.

Why should we consider you that much different?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 16 March 2014 10:34:46 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
Paul,
while you are busy reading much more into what a poly said on Q&A there has been and still is real racism going on.

Hasbeen's son was attack by a gang of lebs, that is racism.

An Islander girl was gang raped by Africans, that is racism.

These people, and many others, were attacked because of their race.

Remember the leb rapists at Bankstown, they were racist. The police recorded 60 gang rapes at the time and they did not catch them all.
Leb gang anti social action is well known.
African gang violence is known to occur in Melbourne and Sydney.

The Croats and Serbs have been fighting over some incident centuries ago and still do. Iraqis had violent confrontations in Auburn. Sri Lankans have been getting into it in Melbourne and Sydney, including acid attack. Lately there is violence between Sunni and Shia muslims, over Syria. These are example of ethnic violence. Much more to be concerned about than what changes the government may make to the Act.

last week on ABC Q&A a woman called a journalist a racist and many other things. she has now apologised privately and will be interesting to see if the ABC apologises on air. Maybe to save a law suit they will.

Plenty of active racism for you to chase up Paul.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 16 March 2014 10:38:01 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
Steele,
you said, "You wrote;

“So to be critical of muslims, buddists or Christians is not racist.” Yet you neglected to include Jews. Why?"
I didn't mention Hindus or other religions either, don't tell me!Because I did not mention Jews, you have me earmarked as a Nazi. Well that is a new one.

My dictionary states a bigot is an intolerant person. I guess that is right as I am intolerant of those who demonstrate contempt for our laws and social standards. Those groups that practice FGM, for example. Those hoons who just went down my street, squealing tyres and high revs, not tolerant there either. I would come down hard on both above groups.

Funny, I seldom think of race, but I do know of quite a few alien cultural practices. No we have been multi-racial since the first fleet.

Having a cohesive community should be a priority of government. The introduction of multiculturalism has made us into a nation of separate tribes. 'Unity in diversity' is a huge misnomer. Unless we wake up soon we will have all the same social problems as UK and Europe. Pity that
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 17 March 2014 12:03:55 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
Another definition of racism is when indigenous defend one of their own no matter what he did. Of course others do that also but at least their majority condemns the deed & not defend the perpetrator on grounds of race.
Posted by individual, Monday, 17 March 2014 6:26:24 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
"Hasbeen's son was attack by a gang of lebs, that is racism." Banjo, if the attack was racially motivated, then the perpetrators are raciest, and also guilty of a criminal act. If you extrapolate from the facts of the attack, and even if the perpetrators had admitted the attack was racially motivated, that ALL Lebanese people condoned the attack because that is a racial trait of ALL Lebanese people, then you would be guilty of racial vilification. Without evidence you would have stigmatised ALL Lebanese as having a certain negative characteristic due to their ethnicity and for no other reason.
I took it that Brandis wants to cave in to the extreme right on this issue, giving legitimacy to racial vilification under the guise of free speech.
I have read all the posts here, and to the 'Usual Suspects' your references to singular examples of bad behavior by minority members of some racial groups is irrelevant to the debate on racial vilification. I listened to Charlton Heston, I don't have a problem with what Mr Heston said. His speech is full of personal justification, "I served in World War II", "I'm a Native American, for God's sake.", but that is his prerogative to help justify himself. Heston goes on giving a couple examples of 'political correctness' gone mad, can't disagree with that. A good part of his speech is an attack on Time/Warner for profiting from some crud named Ice-T. From what Heston said, I think any reasonable person would feel the same about that.
con't
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 17 March 2014 6:53:39 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
con't

This could be construed as racial vilification, "racism is when indigenous defend one of their own no matter what he did" Indi is that what ALL Aboriginal people do? Only if you say so. Now this is the vilification part "Of course others do that also (sop, sop) but at least their majority condemns the deed & not defend the perpetrator on grounds of race." By default you are saying the majority of Aboriginal people do not condemn wrong doing in their own people because it is a negative racial trait in Aboriginal people to defend wrong doing in their own people. Indi, that is absurd as you have no evidence that the majority of Aboriginal people for any reason defend the wrong doing of their own race. Simply a bit of racial vilification.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 17 March 2014 6:56:03 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 what ALL Aboriginal people do?
Paul1405,
Of course not all but the greater majority do react that way. I know that from personal experience after living in remote communities for 34 years, 35 nearly now.
As an example, when you have an indigenous being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive towards a non-indigenous then his people condemn him openly. When that agressive fellow then hits a non-indigenous his people condemn it. If the non-indigenous then hits back then his people turn on the non-indigenous without fail. Their loyalty is with their own even if they're wrong. That's not a racist accusation no nothing, it's merely how it works. How do I know ? I have witnessed it quite a few times.
I say the same about my won race which has more morons than I can poke a stick at but in our race we condemn the deed not the race. That is my point. If you want to bleat racism I can't stop you but let me tell you that you'd be totally morally wrong.
Posted by individual, Monday, 17 March 2014 8:59:59 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
We already have laws in relation to defamation, slander, libel and incitement to violence.

In what ways are they so inadequate as to justify the retention of Section 18 ?

In what ways does that Section strengthen civil liberties without infringing on one of those liberties, the right of free expression [see first sentence] ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 17 March 2014 9:08:33 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 am happy to be labelled racist by christophobic haters of everything decent. The fact i have more african,phillipino,chinese,aboriginal,European friends than them comforts me that their use of language is deceitful and pathetic. Sell of the abc. It is only the smirking chattering class who embraces such inaccuracies
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 March 2014 9:32:43 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
Indi, you talk in terms of "the majority" what majority? More than 50% of the 1%. Then you get the person who cloaks racism in some kind of mystical national pride. The "OUR WAY OF LIFE" and "OUR PEACE LOVING WAYS" Then on the other side of the equation is the "ways of radical ethnic groups, AND LAYABOUTS who's life mission is to instil hurt onto others". Then the ultimatum is delivered "THIS IS AUSTRALIA, LOVE IT AND LOVE US AND OUR WAYS, OR LEAVE"

According one group of white supremacists this is what you should be doing;

1. Take public transport, avoid taxis driven by foreigners.
What do you do if the bus is driven by one of those dreaded foreigners? Walk.

2. Cook at home, on the BBQ, avoid foreign take aways, shops, restaurants. What, live on 'Skippy' burgers and gum leaves.

3. Don’t learn a foreign language – improve your English skills. Does that include not going to the opera as they might be singing in Italian or some other disgusting foreign lingo. Heaven forbid, how else are we going to listen in to their evil plotting and scheming jf we don't, learn the lingo.

4. Buy from Australians only. Does Woolies and Coles have check-outs with Aussie people serving, the "Aussie Only" isle With my trolly full of Vegemite, Arnotts Biscuits and Brill Cream, for that slick back look
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 17 March 2014 10:07:59 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
Paul1405,
You're not interested in discussing reality, you're deliberately crap-stirring. How about some integrity ?
Posted by individual, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:13:29 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
Paul you would be a joke, if you weren't serious.

Tell me lad, when did you first discover you hated your mother, Oh, & all white people

Please get help.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:16:04 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 have always said OLO was full of racists. Whether they call themselves bigots or intolerant or even deny outright that they are racist it is fairly obvious to any reasonable person that they are as racist as any KKK member and even up there with the eugenicists of old.

Intolerance, bigotry and racism are all heinous attitudes and you should and will be condemned for proudly proclaiming your nastiness and hatred.

That other groups have racist attitudes does not make it right for you to behave just as appallingly.

All people should be treated as individuals and praised or condemned on what they actually do not on what fearful, ignorant people think they might do.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:29:51 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
Paul,
You seem to infer that the attack on Hasbeen's son was only a rare occurance, there have been many such attacks by lebs on lone anglo males. As there has been rapes and harassment of anglo girls. The anti social behaviour of muslim lebs is well known. How about the violence here caused by the Syria situation.

You also refer to racial traits and you are incorrect. It is cultural and passed down from one generation to the next. After 3 generations they still refer to themselves as Lebs. We do not appear to have the same social problems with non muslim Lebanese.

The question for us is; How many attacks, rapes and anti social behaviour do we tolerate, or how many generations, before we say enough and stop allowing more of this group in.

The same applies to other groups that continue with alien cultural practices, such as underage and forced marriage, continued hatreds and fighting between groups. Again criticism of such is not racism, it is on cultural grounds. Thankfully most migrant groups make good efforts to integrate, there are only a few groups that do not.

I see very little evidence of 'white based' racism, except the rare incident like the bimbos you mentioned. The government has a right to reconsider laws if the present laws are not adequate or too restrictive. You are looking for reds under the bed, why not wait until you see what is proposed, if anything..
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 17 March 2014 11:44:08 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
Paul,

There is plenty of racism, Whites are racist, Lebs are racist, Muslims are racist, Aboriginals are racist.

It has been the habit of humans over the millennia to form communities based on shared heritage and differentiate those within the group from others by language, culture, religion, colour, etc. One only has to remember school to remember the groups or cliques. And one only has to visit a soccer match in the UK to see how different tribes of supporters square off against each other.

Today's society, however, expects that each person is treated on their merit, but is rife with examples of nepotism, cronyism etc, and people forming gangs based on race. Hasbeen's example of his son being attacked by a gang of lebanese is a prime example of racism where a group of racially exclusive individuals attacks someone of another race and does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as Paul is trying to suggest, as a gang of whites attacking a "leb" would instantly be labelled racist.

The laws against racial vilification I believe go too far as they include the prohibition against causing offense which is far more subjective. To extend SOL's example, Say that Joe Blogs has had several experiences of aboriginals (I use them as a continuation of the above example) being disruptive, and then says that aboriginals are drunken trouble makers. That would be offensive to many, but to Joe, that is simply stating his personal experience. The issue of vilification then falls to the intent of his statement which is a much more difficult level of proof, and where the issue of free speech clashes with the desire to protect.

As a Liberal, I find any law prosecuting people for saying what they believe is troubling, and that the line in the sand against hate speech needs to be very clearly defined, and not subject to anyone's sensibilities.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 17 March 2014 12:32:37 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
mikk,
Please tell me why anyone should be tolerant of those that are contemptuously disregarding our laws and social standards.

Then why you regard such intolerance as racism.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 17 March 2014 12:55:24 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
When will people realise that you ARE a racist when you state things like
"The anti social behaviour of muslim lebs is well known"
"Thankfully most migrant groups make good efforts to integrate, there are only a few groups that do not.

Thanks for proving my point Banjo.

P.S. You need to look a bit harder. I can think of numerous examples of "white based" racism. Much of OLO for starters.

P.P.S. I dont tolerate anyone breaking our laws but can you explain to me what exactly are "our social standards"? Are they just your standards or do they encompass all of Australia's diverse and ways of living?
Posted by mikk, Monday, 17 March 2014 2:12:30 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
Sorry that last bit should read
do they encompass all of Australia's diverse and colourful ways of living?
Posted by mikk, Monday, 17 March 2014 2:14:53 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
Mikk,

Equality of men and women, and observance of the rule of law, for starters.

Not all cultural practices are aligned with those two principles: FGM, polygamy, differential rights of men and women in relation to inheritance, rights to divorce, and access to children after divorce, etc. - these are cultural practices which cannot co-exist with an observance of equality before the law.

Cultural practices are usually expressions of power, often of very long-standing, within different social groups and when people from those social groups, particularly the beneficiaries of that power imbalance, come to Australia, they may have difficulty in observing the principle of equality before the law.

So often immigration is very much a learning experience :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 17 March 2014 2:27:37 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
mikk,
You said, "When will people realise that you ARE a racist when you state things like"
"The anti social behaviour of muslim lebs is well known"
"Thankfully most migrant groups make good efforts to integrate, there are only a few groups that do not.

You have a peculiar slant on racism if you think either, or both, of those statements are racist. Maybe you should buy a dictionary.

If you cannot identify some of our social standards in comparison to other countries, you need to travel or at least expand your knowledge.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 17 March 2014 3:00:32 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
"(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group."

This is the section and *only* section of the act currently being questioned.

Note it says "act", not speech.
This can be anything at all. A gesture, a look, a laugh, crossing the street.

Note, it doesn't include religion.

It says nothing of whether the "act" had a valid or invalid justification (true/false).

It says nothing about whether you made a statement about "ALL" or a "majority" of any ethnic group, Paul1405 and Suseonline.

All that matters is whether the act is *likely* to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

No matter whether you're telling the truth, being honest about your own experiences, responding to the hostile aggression of the other person(s).

No, your "act" was "likely" to offend.
Arrested, prosecuted, fined/imprisoned.
Ridiculous!
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 17 March 2014 3:22:11 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
Being of predominantly Irish descent (in modern times) I do find all the laws about racism etc., rather offensive as they deprive the youth of today of the character building experience of being racially or religiously abused.
They also deprive them of the equally character building experience of copping a "bunch of fives" for their remarks and/or gestures.

To have born an obviously Irish name in the 1940s to the 1970s, was a positive experience, we were among other things, ignorant, had dirty habits and were hiding rifles in the crypt of St Mary's Cathederal (during WW II) to help the Germans when they landed!! and neutral Ireland was leaving the lights on in Dublin as a guide for German planes bombing London.

All the fun has gone out of being racist.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 17 March 2014 4:27:25 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
Hi Is Mise,

Apres toi, le deluge !

An Irishman enters a doctor's waiting room with bandages over both his ears ......
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 17 March 2014 5:56:03 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
At the moment people like the Australia First Party and One Nation are kept in check by our Anti Vilification Laws. The sick jokes about avoiding taxis driven by foreigners, not eating from foreign take-away's, not to learn a foreign language and shop only with Australians is in fact part of the lunatic Australia First Parties policy. What is proposed is the repeal of part 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This will give traction to the lunatic right to move on from sick policy about taxi drivers, eating out etc, and allow them to take aim at minorities in society with the expressed purpose of racial vilification under the guise of free speech.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 17 March 2014 8:03:57 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
Paul1405,
I'd support them if it meant drumming some sense into the likes of you. How much oxygen to use everyday ?
Posted by individual, Monday, 17 March 2014 8:29:55 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
Paul, since when have Italian folk been followers of radical religious beliefs, on mass.

Since when have Chineese been a threat to our peace loving ways.

As indi says, you are crap stiring, but you picked the wrong person.
Now here's a hypo for you.

Youre on a bus, it stops and three young foriegn people hop on with back packs, are you going to be concerned, not likely.

Now same scenario, only one has a turban on his head. Are you suggesting youre not going to be the least bit concerned?

No doubt you see this as a racist remark, well I don't as i am clearly stating a fact as I would feel very uncomfortable if that were me on that bus, simply because the muslim religion harbors violence.

Now as i am Australian, living in my country, knowing full well this violence has been imported, why should I be tagged as racist.

Mikk....All people should be treated as individuals and praised or condemned on what they actually do not on what fearful, ignorant people think they might do.

So, how can we condemn an offender without being racist?

More importantly, do we be pro active, or, reactive and wait for trouble to happen before we air our concerns?

I invite you to browse my post history, as there you will find me stating that there are some very decent muslims living here in Oz.

Finally, i'm not against muslims, i'm against the religion being practiced here as it harbors violence and threatens our peaceful way of life.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 5:49:22 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
Hi Retchub,

Muslims don't wear turbans. If you see a bloke with a turban, he's more likely to be Sikh, not Muslim. There's a difference :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 7:59:40 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
Hasbeen I am not 'crap stirring' as you and Indi, put it. I made a joke of The Australia First Parties policies, and they are a joke, which are on their web site. However there is nothing funny about the lunatics behind this kind of right wing extremism.
It was the "moderate" conservatives in the form of Abbott and Brandis, who egged on by the ratbags from The Institute of Public Affairs, call it a liberal Party think tank if you wish, started to stir the pot on racism by indicating they wanted to repeal 18C. All of this being in the name of free speech.
I don't know if you seen the Q&A program on which I based this tread, but Brandis was way out of step with the rest of the panel, and I wouldn't call them all lefties, the reporter from The Australian (a newspaper which supports repeal) was even arguing with Brandis.

As for your "Bus" I live in Inner Sydney, and catch buses regularly. If all the Italians, Chinese, Aborigines, turban wearers (often the drive has a turban on his head) were to get off, I would be the only one left on board. do I feel safe, YES! Am I the least bit concerned, NO! Ironically the worse trouble I've seen on the bus in recent times was some young blokes late on a Friday night coming home with my partner from the city, they were Anglo. so what, with piss in them, more the trouble, being abusive, spitting on the floor and carrying on like jerks. You don't need black skin to be a jerk!
I go to Fiji a bit, ride on the public bus, from town to town, oh my god full of black people, some Indians, one European, does he feel threatened, intimidated, NO. The day a bunch of Skinheads get on the bus that's when I'll feel threatened and intimidated.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 8:06:45 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
Joe,

Some Muslims do wear turbans as do some Hindus and some Christians, among others.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 8:47:55 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
Paul1405, Australia First's resistance list is not a joke.
And why shouldn't they be allowed to suggest passive resistance and noncompliance against any political policy or social change they disagree with?

They are not endorsing aggressive or destructive behaviour.

Why should they be hauled off to court for such a non-aggressive strategy?
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 9:16:04 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
Shock,

As far as I'm aware The Australia First Party is not being hauled off to court for anything at the moment, but I don't take a lot of interest in some lunatics with ratbag policies that scored less than ZERO POINT ONE PERCENT of the vote. Even the good "Doctor" could only manage 617 votes, they are a joke on the fringe and lets hope they stay that way. Having strong laws on the subject will ensure the far right wont gain traction for their hate speak.

Shock, you say; "And why shouldn't they be allowed to suggest passive resistance and noncompliance against any political policy or social change they disagree with? They are not endorsing aggressive or destructive behaviour."
I don't have an issue with that statement, will the extreme abide by what you say? Possibly, given the existing laws we have in place. Dismantle those laws, and the answer then is, I don't know, but I doubt they would, given their track record around the world
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 10:14:05 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
Paul1405,

Was it you who said he stood for the Greens at the recent NSW local government elections? How many votes did you get?
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:00:19 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
Beach, around about 25 times great that Dr Jim at the federal poll. Out of the 7 candidates the good doctor ran dead last! Shows that the electorate is not fooled yet by some ex con from the lunatic right. LOL

Jim Saleam, was arrested in 1974 and found guilty of firebombing a left-wing Brisbane bookshop. After the collapse of the Nazi Party in the mid-'70s, Saleam moved to Sydney. The most serious act of violence occurred in January 1989, when the home of the Australian representative of the African National Congress, Eddie Funde, was shot at. Two NA members were arrested. Saleam was sentenced to three and a half years jail. This was his second time inside.
And you don't think these kinds of people are not capable of race hate and incitement to violence if laws are changed.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 March 2014 8:23:34 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
Paul1405, so these law are repealed, which encourages some to voice even more extreme views.

So what? You admit they're politically insignificant.
More extreme statements would win them even less votes!

At least you'd know whether you're really dealing with sheep or wolves, as subterfuge would no longer be necessary.

Andrew Bolt made no "extreme" statements and he ended up in court because of these laws. A waste of his and the public's resources.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 9:25:40 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 Shocker,

Andrew Bolt ended up in court because he got his facts
wrong - as the following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

As we all know free speech is not an unfettered right.
It doesn't have to be balanced or fair but it should be
factually accurate.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 10:06:28 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
The ABC's Media Watch and a number of contributors to The Drum defended Andrew Bolt and didn't imagine that he would be convicted. On top of that the reasons for the decision seemed to have come out of the blue, and the controversy continues.

Section 18C is the problem and it needs to be deleted. How can anyone obey a law where its interpretation is not obvious and obtainable from a normal reading by so many journalists, lawyers and by ordinary folk as well? Or is the intent that people should be self-censoring because at any moment their thoughts and intent could be construed negatively by others?
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 8:31:46 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
The controversy continues.

Here's a transcript from Media Watch, Monday 17th March, 2014:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3965544.htm

And another link that also may be of interest on this issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3071066.html
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 9:34:37 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
cont'd ...

The author of the second link that I gave points out -
The tone of Mr Bolt's columns were nasty and demeaned
the people he was writing about.

We're told that -
"editora, news directors, executive producers of
current affairs and news programs, all decide the limits of
free speech all the time, and they do so not merely on the
basis of what's legally safe, often decisions are made
on gut feelings, on their understanding of their readership
or their audience, or the history and traditions of the
organisation that they're fortunate to run for a period of
time..."

The author notes however that the blogosphere is
a place where "mad people and sane people, people consumed
with hatred and bile, and people who want only to
serve the public good, and all those in between, feel they have
a licence to say anything and damn the consequences."
That of course is part and parcel of cyber space - however
reputable news sources have a higher standard of reporting to
maintain.

And in the case of Mr Bolt - he needs to be reminded
that - free speech is not an unfettered
right. And as the author confirms - It doesn't have to be
balanced or fair - but it should be factually accurate.
Therefore what has to be decided in our society before we get rid
of any of our laws is -
what is acceptable speech and what isn't in the public
sphere.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is (and should be) limited by the rights of others.
Most democratic countries have four major restrictions on
free expression. Laws covering libel and slander, public
decency, urging violence, and hate speech.

And that is as it should be.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 10:01:39 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
Hi Foxy,

Most Indigenous people would have known just what Andrew Bolt was getting at, the Johnny-come-latelies who hop in and claim prizes etc. that are clearly intended for Indigenous people who have genuinely and very likely suffered discrimination and the hindering of their careers by virtue of being, usually obviously, Indigenous. And even more so, by many people who may not have the slightest Indigenous ancestry, by the way.

In my experience, working in an Indigenous student support program at a university, it was not uncommon - given the slightly relaxed entry requirements at the time for Indigenous applicants - for people to apply who did not have any Indigenous ancestry. I remember one bloke (who turned out to have Calabrese and Austrian parents) who hummed and ha'ed about where his mother was from - a sure give-away - and who never returned when I gave him a Family tree form to fill out. He later got into another program, became their 'Aboriginal Scholar of the Year' and took up a key position in Canberra.

My wife worked in a similar program on another campus had many times had the same issue. One students threatened to take her to court if she kept asking. That student is now in an important position. No more to say.

The one aspect that worries me is about any repeal is an implied right to humiliate: how to keep a prohibition on that is going to be a problem if the section is removed. Humiliation can be insidious, implied, and very damaging.

But the right to offend and insult ? No worries. There are already many laws which keep that within bounds - no right to incite, or to intimidate or to urge violence. So that bit's fine with me.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 20 March 2014 8:22:23 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
To limit speech is to limit thought
Any half rational person knows the limitation of speech is no more than a matter of etiquette. Australian foreign policy is inspired by racism towards Muslim fanatics. We would never have supported an invasion of Ireland because of the IRA. Nor did we ever contemplate an invasion of apartheid South Africa but had no issue invading A Muslim Iraq.

The restrictions we place on free speech are never about reality their about us feeling good about ourselves. Thus we may temper what we say and say and think what we always thought and said amongst ourselves. The once overt sexism in the corporate world remains as healthy as ever because it is an essentially adolescent male culture. The suits have just learnt how feign maturity as adolescent always have during a church service.

You can't change people's hearts with prefecture. Legislating speech merely creates the outward semblance of propriety and the resentment it engenders prevents any change. So now the racist, the sexist, the egotist is merely more hidden and more entrenched. Where once he was free to express his immaturity and could be recognised and confronted and some change was possible. Today, he hides amongst the like minded, the beliefs and prejudices entrenched and the entire society becomes stagnant.
Posted by YEBIGA, Thursday, 20 March 2014 9:48:52 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 Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't have anything further to add to this discussion.
I've said what I wanted to say. In Andrew Bolt's case -
his columns were downright nasty and did demean the people
he was writing about. He also got his facts wrong and deserved
the verdict that he got from the judge. He trifled with the
facts and as I stated earlier free speech is not unfettered
right. It doesn't have to be balanced or fair but it should
be factually accurate. It's interesting though that Andrew
Bolt can dish it out but he can't take it. As one author
tells us - Bolt recently demanded an
apology and got it. The people he demeaned earlier
had to go to court to get theirs.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 March 2014 10:40:22 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
This is very much a vexing question for me. How do you balance a persons right to "free Speech" and at the same time respect the rights of the individual to peace and harmony free from those who would use this unqualified right to vilify others. There would not be much of a problem if all in society had an equal say, and those that were vilified could retort with equality, but society is not like that, besides it would be a awful place if there was hate speech everywhere.

Foxy, it is interesting in your drum link that Michael Gawenda does say;
"That's because inevitably, sooner or later, Bolt would write a column that I would refuse to publish. And then I'd have a martyr to free speech on my hands."

YEBIGA, very interesting comments "You can't change people's hearts with prefecture" In the ideal would there is no need to change people's hearts, all their hearts are in the right place, but what do we do in the short term?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:13:09 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
Foxy, this law has nothing to do with whether your statements were "factual" or not.

You don't even need to prove any offence actually occurred.
All you need is for your "act" (not speech) to be judged LIKELY to offend, insult, etc.
Likely.
Since when do we make laws about "likely" subjective perceptions!

If Bolt's statements weren't factual, why wasn't he sued for libel/defamation instead?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:44:03 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
Paul1405
In the short and long term, you allow and encourage people to express whatever wisdom or nonsense they possess. For the visible evil can be death with and confronted. As children we learn from our errors. We do not pick up the tools of oppressors because we believe ourselves to be right.

For heavens sake, this is all in our constitutions these are fundamentals. The reason that free speech is a fundamental is precisely because without it oppression of the worst sort is enabled. Thus we permit the lunatic to speak so that the worst excesses can be heard. Once you begin to dabble with this the devil has his foot in the door and the worst crimes are always inevitable.

Is this not apparent? Who would think that we would be conducting crusades and justifying torture of prisoners? There are in our western constitutions and our common law, the wisdom of the ages, which we discard and ignore with impudence and then wonder why we are engaged in the repetition of past horrors. We invaded Iraq on false pretences and we are still their looting and pillaging.

When our kids occupied the city square in Melbourne we permitted our mayor to call on the police and violently throw them out. We are a craven society, an embarrassment to our forebears who fought with their blood with rights we relinquish as inconveniences.

Why are we so afraid of mere words but to protect our safe illusions, to avoid facing our complete surrender to a lifestyle of total banality. We are run by adolescent boys who never pass the stage of measuring the size of their organs.

Thus whilst our craven politicians and our media can continue to deny and enable the worst crimes to be conducted, whilst every political leader will deny the Israeli genocide of Palestinians - it is incumbent on all thinking people to deny the holocaust too
Posted by YEBIGA, Thursday, 20 March 2014 12:07:46 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
Dear Shocker,

May I politely suggest that you read the following
link and perhaps it will clarify things for you
regarding the importance of facts:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 March 2014 12:39:37 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
However where the ABC 'trifles' with the facts and the recent claims that the RAN burned an illegal immigrant's hands and tortured him, it is merely extending things a bit.

As I posted previously, authoritarianism disguises itself as left thinking in present day Australia.

This is what real lefties would believe,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
Noam Chomsky
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 20 March 2014 1:34:43 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
YEBIGA,

Just a small point, why on earth would we have wanted. or have been asked, to invade Northern Ireland because of the IRA?
The place was invaded centuries ago and is still occupied by the invaders.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 20 March 2014 2:48:51 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
Foxy,

From memory. Bolt's 'mistakes' were rather trivial and in fact, some of his statements were, if you like, 'more correct' than those of some of those he criticised.

Obviously, it was a slip of the pen when he wrote that Larissa Behrendt's father was white - her grandfather was a German book editor - but I recall that Paul Behrendt did not find out himself that his mother had been Aboriginal until he was in his forties (she had died when he was four or so and his father had put him and his siblings in homes, as was his prerogative as their father) - and when Larissa herself would have been a teenager.

That does seem to be moving slightly towards the Johnny-come-lately category. Luckily, they were both mentored by powerful people and could be assured of a fairly promising career path. Great for some. Larissa's English accountant mother must have been so proud.

Again from memory, Bolt got a date wrong, by a year or so, 1902 instead of 1903, somewhere in all that.

But as someone points out, why couldn't he have been sued for defamation, or libel ? If he had really broken any laws, that would still be a possibility - IF he has really broken any laws. I don't think he did, but I'll defer, out of self-preservation, to the judgment of the Court.

Love,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 20 March 2014 3:02:25 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 Joe (Loudmouth),

Why don't you go and Google what Judge Bloomberg's
decision was in the Bolt case . You just may learn
that his findings were - that Bolt had defamed the
people he wrote about - that they had a
legitimate case - and he quoted the appropriate
part of the Racial
Defamation Act in his judgement.

As for all the arguments about "freedom of speech"
concerning Mr Bolt. What a load of nonsense.
Mr Bolt is a champion of verbal abuse, nasty insinuation,
and downright mistruth.

Freedom of speech is probably one of the most misunderstood
of our right. You don't have the absolute right to say
whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want on
any topic - not if it harms another person.

Most Australians recognise the value of laws as rules of
conduct that are established by elected governments and
followed by the community to maintain an orderly and
free society. Everyone in this country must obey laws
established by governments. Equally of course all
Australians are protected by the rule of law. Which means
that no one is "above the law," not politicians and certainly
not Mr Bolt.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 March 2014 3:47:08 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
Well, living as an outsider in indigenous communities for ther greater part of my life I can confidently say I know what racism is. I also have lived in white australian society & still converse with that society daily as well. If you want my honest opinion I find it impossible to say which I prefer. The stupidity of the white society or the racism of the indigenous.
So, I just keep on slogging away & take it as it comes.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 20 March 2014 6:19:29 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
Probably the most racist remark that I have ever heard was made by an Aboriginal friend to another Aboriginal at a seminar at Sydney Uni, which was part of a Continuing Education Course called
"Through Aboriginal Eyes".

My friend was the Guest Speaker and before things got started I introduced him to the other bloke.
The conversation started by my friend asking him
"Have you married back?"
"What do you mean?"
"Has your wife got more blood than you?"
"Well", somewhat taken aback, "no, she's paler than me".
"You should have married someone darker and got more blood into your kids".

I remember this conversation in such detail because I was astounded, embarrassed and feeling for the much upset recipient of those racist remarks.
I had a bit to say to my friend about his rude remarks later.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 20 March 2014 9:45:51 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
is Mise,
yeah, reminds of an indigenous woman disciplining a rather pale skinned child at the supermarket with the exact words "you stupid, you have white skin for nothing".
It was rather funny in some ways but very sobering nowadays in the wake of change over the past 20 years. The term Blackfellow has gone out the window in the cities but here in the country they're still & rightfully comfortable in their complexion. Just watching the SBS makes me wonder at these indigenous who are literally whiter than I am.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 20 March 2014 10:11:04 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
Thanks, Is Mise.

Many, many times on the Mission, I remember blokes arguing and soon enough someone would say, "Well, you're just Black." And the other bloke would answer back, "Well, you're just double Black." Sometimes brothers. And they were dead serious too, it usually led to a fight.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 20 March 2014 11:14:17 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 great piece on Harmony Day by Tim Soutphommasane (a name that wont sit well with some of the 'Usual Suspects', after all they would find Tim hard enough to pronounce) the Race Discrimination Commissioner.

Tim said; "Unfortunately, the debate reflects significant misunderstanding of how the act works. For example, it is frequently asserted that people can be “prosecuted” or “convicted” under the Racial Discrimination Act. It is regularly said that section 18C serves to protect hurt feelings at the expense of free speech.
Neither assertions are true. Just as you can't be prosecuted or convicted for civil negligence or defamation, you can't be subject to criminal penalty for racial vilification under section 18C. And when it concerns hurt feelings, the courts have interpreted section 18C in a clear and consistent manner since the 1990s. Unlawful conduct must cause “profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights”.

"It is also strange that section 18D now appears to be targeted for amendment. This is one of the few provisions in Australian law that explicitly protects freedom of expression. The section protects anything that is done reasonably and in good faith when it involves artistic expression, scientific inquiry, or fair comment and reporting."

I do question the motives of those wanting 18C and 18D repealed. Is it about the right of free speech, or as seems to be evident, the right to racially vilify others?
The Abbott/Brandis line on this does fit in with this governments attitude to racial vilification from the outset. With people like Morrison placing asylum seekers into a "special class" and Abbotts well known racist comments towards Aboriginals, even claiming the first Australians were "chosen by the finest judges in England", completely dismissive of Aboriginal occupation of this continent for 40,000 years. Free speech or racial vilification, you be the judge.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/no-case-to-change-racial-discrimination-act-20140320-3555y.html
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 21 March 2014 6:34:59 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
Foxy, how many times do I have to say it?
Whether Bolt made *false* statements is IRRELEVANT.

Bolt wasn't sued for libel/defamation.
The judge was applying the standards of an inapplicable law (libel). He should know better.

*This* law (racial discrimination) says nothing about whether your statements are "factual", only whether they are "likely" to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

Even the truth could offend someone.
Should truth be illegal?
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 21 March 2014 10:53:55 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
Foxy and Paul,

Do you believe that truth or substantial truth should be a defence under these laws? Section 18D doesn't say so. It just gives a defence of reasonableness or good faith, substituting a subjective test, which a possibly activist judge gets to apply, for an objective one. In the Victorian Catch the Fire Ministries case I referred to in my previous post, the pastors weren't even able to raise the accuracy of what they had said in the offending seminar.

Westerners find female genital mutilation (FGM) abhorrent and a very serious violation of human rights. If either of you did it to your daughter or had it done, you would find yourselves in prison for a very long time, probably in protective custody. If I say that FGM has 98% prevalence in Somalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country

in the context of a debate about, say, whether Somalis make desirable immigrants, should I be liable under Section 18C, especially if I encounter a judge who is more concerned about community harmony or silencing "racists" than the truth? Remember also that "the process can be the punishment", even if people end up being cleared.

In the Bolt case, Bolt may well have laid himself open to an action for defamation by not getting his facts right, but he was hardly vilifying people for just having a small quantum of Aboriginal ancestry (and not trying to unfairly take advantage of it). Why is it racial vilification when Bolt says it, but not when people who are obviously Aboriginal say it themselves?
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 21 March 2014 11:24:14 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 Shocker and Divergence,

For your information the following link provides
the Racial Vilification laws regarding the Bolt
case from a state perspective and explains the judges
decision:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parliament/publications.nsf/key/Racialvilificationlaws:theBoltcasefromaStateperspective/$File/Racial+vilification+laws+E+Brief.pdf
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 1:30:43 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
Having related an Aboriginal racist example it's only fair that I tell one against 'Whitey'.

I went into a small "Fish and Chips" establishment on the NSW North Coast. The proprietor was a friendly chap and we had a bit of a yarn as I paid him and he prepared the fish and chips (both fresh cooked--good place!).
As I was waiting four young aboriginals came in, I knew one of them and also knew his family well as his uncle and I had been on active service in the same Regiment and had first met overseas.
I hadn't seen young Mick for a while and we gave each other a bear hug and he introduced me to his mates and we shook hands and chatted a bit.
SLAM! went my wrapped order on the counter, "ERE'S YER FISH 'N CHIPS".

We all got the message and have had more than one laugh over it.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 21 March 2014 2:27:45 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
From Foxy's intended link,

<However, on the broader issue of the interpretation of s 18C, (David)Marr was in general agreement with George Brandis, stating:

The anti-vilification provisions of the
Racial Discrimination Act used to
attack Bolt are drafted far too
broadly. They outlaw speech that is
merely offensive or insulting.
Vigorous public discussion in a free
society is impossible without causing
insult and offence.

Marr went on to conclude that "short of
abolishing these anti-vilification
protections entirely, no amendment of
the law would have helped the hapless
Bolt">
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 3:00:49 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
David Marr said much more than that.
He stated quite clearly that Bolt was wrong.
Spectacularly wrong!

Judge Bromberg's words:

"I accept that the language utilised in the newspaper
article were inflammatory..."
"Race, colour and ethnicity were vital elements of the
message and therefore a motivating reason for conveying
the message..."

It would help everyone to read the previous link
given earlier on the Racial Vilification Laws and the
Bolt case from a State Perspective. It clearly explains
the reasons for the judge's decision:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parliament/publications.nsf/key/Racialvilificationlaws:theBoltcasefromaStateperspective/$File/Racial+vilification+laws+E+Brief.pdf
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 3:51:51 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
Foxy,

I gave a direct quote from the link you advised everyone to read. It is there in black and white. There is no ambiguity. David Marr agreed with George Brandis, he said:

"The anti-vilification provisions of the
Racial Discrimination Act used to
attack Bolt are drafted far too
broadly. They outlaw speech that is
merely offensive or insulting."
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 4:05:17 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
Foxy,

You haven't answered the question about whether truth should be a defence.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 21 March 2014 4:09:49 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
Gentlemen,

I've provided you with several links including
the link that explains the reasons for the
judge's decision in the Bolt case - within the Racial
Vilification Laws. You may peruse these at
your own leisure and make of them what you will.
I have no further wish to add any additional comments
to this issue. I've stated what I wished to say on
this subject.

Enjoy your week-end.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 7:20:29 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
Gold Coast again, what sort of attacks are these?

http://www.news.com.au/national/surfside-buslines-driver-left-bloodied-after-shocking-attack-at-southport/story-fncynjr2-1226860933707
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 1:06:12 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
Beach,

Are you saying this attack was racially motivated? Are you homing in on that part of the article which said "dark complexion" I would descried the perpetrator as a bad tempered jerk. One of my sons is a Sydney public bus driver, and I catch buses quite a bit myself, and yes there are some bad people, crazy people out there. My son and other drivers take the attitude that fare paying is a problem for the police and transit officers, as drivers say "don't be a hero. hero's get hurt".
Fare evasion is huge on Sydney Buses, my own observation and my son's first hand knowledge says at least 10% don't pay at all , and who knows how many under pay. The inspectors ping about 1/2%

Beach, still waiting on your comment about your man Jim Saleam, you did ask me a question, I gave you an answer, you never came back with a reply. Also I must add in the seat of Cook THE GREEN candidate out polled The Mad Doctor by a factor of 10 to 1, I wonder whyyou never replied? Could it be because Australia First really is a joke, after all.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 22 March 2014 7:26:03 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
Even the truth could offend someone.
Should truth be illegal?
Shockadelic,
you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 22 March 2014 9:19:11 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
Paul,

Foxy left the debate rather than choose between either agreeing that truth should be no defence under the racial vilification laws or agreeing that the laws are too broad, as David Marr said, and thus supporting the Liberals' position. What is your opinion on this? Is it good for democracy if unpleasant truths can't even be discussed for fear of legal action?
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:00:58 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
Paul1405,

I am asking you if it was racist, since you originated the thread and you set yourself up an an expert. Because to suit your slant you labelled a man as an Aborigine when according to police reports he did not identify himself as such. As well, in that case you conveniently ed the obvious to find 'racism'. For instance, you deliberately did not mention the two women's attack on other passengers and particularly the women with a pram.

So here is the question once again, Gold Coast a bus and apparently similar most would think:

what sort of attacks are these?

http://www.news.com.au/national/surfside-buslines-driver-left-bloodied-after-shocking-attack-at-southport/story-fncynjr2-1226860933707

Specifically now, how did you arrive at 'Australian racism' in one case but not in the more recent cases I linked to, and especially where the victim in the case you asserted to be an example of 'Australian racism' didn't identify as indigenous? Do you know better than the victim?
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 12:42:13 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 "As well, in that case you conveniently ed the obvious to find 'racism'" should be "As well, in that case you conveniently overlooked the obvious to find 'racism'."
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 12:43:49 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
Divergence, I agree with the findings of Justice Bromberg in the Bolt case. Aside from the finding that Bolt was wrong in fact, that in itself is an entirely different issue. I don't think any reasonable person would accept a "Haters" right to free speech, where they simple use lies to racially insult, vilify and denigrate people. Although at times it may be difficult to establish if a statement is in fact true or false.
Justice Bbromberg went beyond the point of fact or fiction to say Bolt had humiliated and intimidated people, regardless whether his material was true or false. That is the crux of the matter, should you be able to use truthful free speech for the purpose of vilification, I say no. In an ordered and just society we have established rules governing what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and that applies to free speech as it does to most other endeavors in life.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 22 March 2014 1:03:55 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
Paul 1405, "..we have established rules governing what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and that applies to free speech.."

Who is 'we'?

Where and when was there any consultation with the public? Isn't 'we' simply a lobby of activists with the ear of the previous Labor-Greens government?

As I posted previously, authoritarianism disguises itself as left thinking in present day Australia. This is what a real Leftie would say:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
(Noam Chomsky)
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 1:13:24 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
Hmmh, bit of a pattern there. Foxy leaves & Paul1405 takes over.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 22 March 2014 1:21:13 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
Paul,

That is a genuinely authoritarian attitude. The censors in Iran or Communist China would welcome you as one of their own. Who decides if a person is motivated by hatred or by concern about a real problem in society? Judges aren't mind readers. If people can't bear the truth, they should man up. If some feature of an ethnic group's culture is causing serious problems, such as binge drinking among Anglo-Australian youths, or FGM or forced marriages among migrants from some other societies, then we should have every right, and maybe even a duty, to talk about it.

Unlike David Marr, however, who simply wanted the racial vilification laws repealed, I don't have a problem with people being called to account for malicious lies, whether they are about an individual or a group. You can call it religious or racial vilification if you like, but the truth should be an absolute defence.
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 22 March 2014 2:44:36 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
Beach "We" is society, us, you, me, I was not consulted directly about the 60/km hr speed limit, we elect and un-elect law makers for a purpose. These laws have been in place long before any Labor-Green anything! Referring to Goebbels. Here is one for you, Hitler said "Germany's defeat in WWI was down to the Jewish Financiers at home," and a few other things about Jews to boot, maybe if Hitler had been challenged at the time there may have never been a WWII.
"That is a genuinely authoritarian attitude" based on what Divergence "The censors in Iran or Communist China would welcome you as one of their own" can you produce some evidence to support that statement?
"binge drinking among Anglo-Australian youths" can you show how that is a cultural thing? Of course we should be able to talk about such things as "FGM or forced marriages" and those issues are freely talked about in society today, without the need for racial vilification. In my youth, I spent many a Sunday afternoon listing to "Webster" in the Sydney Domain, could say some shocking things about non whites and get away with it in our free society. My casual observance is that this debate is more about the extreme rights, right to racially vilify non whites under the guise of free speech, that anything else.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 22 March 2014 4:24:27 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
Paul1405,

No, your argument is with a real Leftie, Noam Chomsky, and you have no credibility at all in trying to turn it back on him. This is what he said and it is very simple and forthright,

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

You should consider the similarities between your own opinions (Far Green Left if you like) and the Far Right. Noam Chomsky puts your view, which he says is completely anathema to a Leftie, into the bucket with Goebbels and Stalin. But then a conservative or liberal would say the same about your opinions and world view.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 4:46:00 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
How does one differentiate vilifying, from humiliating, from insulting, from offending ?

I'm sure that it's generally agreed that incitement to violence is out. Incitement to express hatred, probably likewise.

But these other aspects of free speech are more difficult to untangle. And can one differentiate between intentionally and unintentionally vilifying or humiliating ? Intent is notoriously difficult to 'prove'.

Perhaps there is a hierarchy, with a boundary - in my view, at least - between inciting, intentionally vilifying, intentionally humiliating, on one side,

AND,

on the other, unintentionally vilifying, unintentionally humiliating, insulting and offending.

On some blogs, I've noticed that some people feel offended if you simply disagree with them: to them, 'discussion' means 'agreement'. But it's amazing how free they feel to then, on the grounds that they have been offended by an opinion, launch the most angry, slanderous and vituperative tirade against the offender.

And another matter: do comments on the Internet or Twitter or whatever open themselves up to libel or slander ? Afre these media forms of print, or are they forms of speech ?

Just wondering :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 22 March 2014 5:14:06 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
Joe,

At least one site in Australia was shut down because a business disliked what a poster(s)printed about their service or lack thereof; this was only last year.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 22 March 2014 8:36:09 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
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like" There is a big difference between "having a view" and racially vilifying people. To say "Australia should stop all Eskimo immigration." is a view, not one I necessarily agree with but a view never the less and people should be free to express that view. However if a person was to say "Joe the Eskimo, was convicted of theft, and that proves all Eskimos are thieves." That to me is racial vilification, no only is it most likely untrue, but it unfairly targets one group in a hurtful vindictive way.
I am the first to agree that this is a very difficult balancing act. I am suspicious of the motives behind the conservatives in wanting laws changed. They are not known for their Liberalism on such matters.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 22 March 2014 10:35:26 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
Paul
I understand your sentiment - why enable idiots to vilify and hurt?

Laws which prevent mere stupidity groom a public to accept restrictions on free speech. Soon legislation is drafted for national security purposes initially restricting journalists or whistle blowers. Public protests and strikes are soon made illegal. Agressive wars-are conducted for the most spurious reasons with a now compliant media and public. Refugees are treated in humanely, but the public now groomed for brutality accept ever increasing outrage.

We are now entirely groomed to accept any offical intolerance and to condemn any individual expression of frustration. So thoroughly dumbed down, we have been taught to elevate the threat of some random impotent individual while ignoring the omnipresent official oppression. Our politicians routinely vilify the unemployed and all welfare recipients, refugees. For nigh on 30 years our rights as citizens in this country have been consistently and persistently eroded away. What enables this but our individual and collective timidity.

Our problem is not the random idiot who may offend you with some ill thought out Comment or even a deliberate vilification. Our problem is our collective timidity which enables and emboldens this mega corporate corruption we call our culture. Our problem is the unwitting good will which time after time is duped to legislate further public timidity- to eviscerate unions, right to strike, working conditions, to sell off public assets to private thieves, to accept every form of theft with fawning civility.

Christ Paul, at this point even honest to goodness racism is preferable to this self destructive timidity. But our culture is no longer even capable of real racism anymore. What we here call racism is laughable
Posted by YEBIGA, Sunday, 23 March 2014 1:19:19 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
YEBIGA

You seem to have put into words what I think. I see all this as falling under the general heading of "Censorship" be it censorship of what you can say, or what you can do, or even what you can read, write or watch. If you accept that some restrictions are desirable for the common good, you then have the immediate problem of what are those restriction, who applies them and what are the consequences if you don't comply?
All laws in some way place restrictions and impose penlites if you break those laws, and the majority of people accept that.
Yebiga, you have identified the problem, but have not offered a solution. What in your view is that solution. I am highly suspicious of what motivates the conservatives into wanting to change these laws, not known for any real support of civil liberties in the past, there must be another agenda.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 23 March 2014 6:33:19 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
@Paul1405,

<< However if a person was to say "Joe the Eskimo, was convicted of theft, and that proves all Eskimos are thieves...>>

Only in the bogeyman tales the Greenies tell themselves!

What you are much, much more likely to hear and see in *multicultural*, *human rights commission* cowered Oz is minimal to no reporting of any offenders ethnicity or religion --and censorship of comment on it even if it is known.

The only ethnic spotlighting - and open slather vilification -- you'll get is in those (now) monthly "documentaries" on public funded SBS or ABC telling everyone how bad white Australias history/past has been.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 March 2014 6:54:14 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
Lets get real on this issue. The conservatives are not concerned about free speech, they will muzzle that when ever it suits them. Rather they are on about their right to vilify sections of the community with impunity, workers, asylum seekers, Muslims, welfare recipients, aboriginals, Fabians etc etc, anyone they perceive as undesirable in their eyes. Would they be jumping up and down with the same zealous zeal if a journalist was to vilify mining billionaires, mega rich newspaper proprietors, fat capitalists from the big end of town, no I think not. The conservatives are past masters at vilification of whole sections of the community, and by and large they get away with it.

"The only ethnic spotlighting - and open slather vilification -- you'll get is in those (now) monthly "documentaries" on public funded SBS or ABC telling everyone how bad white Australias history/past has been."

SPQR got a link to back up that ridiculous claim?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 23 March 2014 7:33:59 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
Paul,

<<SPQR got a link to back up that ... claim?>>

Drop in most days to a discussion or documentary or commentary on either of the above networks and see for yourself...though, Greenies like you are so used to swallowing one eyed Lefty propaganda you'd probably NOT pickup on it!

I was going to add the below comment/challenge to Lexi's post on another thread, after she linked us to *yet another(!)* ABC support site in an to attempt bolster the dubious case for multiculturalism --but I give it to you instead:

*The various ABC outlets had run a huge number of documentaries on multiculturalism (like the one Lexi linked to) BUT, BUT when have you ever known the ABC to run a doco which portrayed --or even allowed for the possibility -- that multiculturalism in/for Oz might NOT be anything other than the best thing since sliced bread?*
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 March 2014 8:10:23 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
Racism and identity politics is nothing but a variation of an ancient method of distracting the masses with bread and circuses.

The solution is to turn the tide of corporatization its values, its culture, its corruption. This is what is making us all mentally ill.

30 years of promises that if we erode away our working conditions, pay for our education, sell off our assets, become casual contractors, permit the concentration of media ownership, remove tariffs to free trade, open our shores to competition and cheap imports, work more productively, change our culture From the long weekend.
Well the promise was that if we did all this there would be a large dividend.

But there is no dividend. Behind the screen of productivity is nothing but mass theft. The social welfare benefits we now provide no longer offer the unemployed any dignity. But still politicians call them cheats. The universities no longer provide an education but charge more and more for it. Mental pygmies like Tina Reinhardt vilifies workers by demanding they need to work for $2 a day. Corporations like Coles and Safeway gauge us with their pricing, bully their supplies into submission and are a law unto themselves.

Do nothing rent seeking investors proliferate, the public companies quarterly announcing ever greater dividends, have elevated their clerks to mystical status as CxOs.

In our faculties the humanities and sciences are abandoned for the study of business management, speculation, marketing, economics, negotiation, human resources, accounting, corporate lawyering, finance and banking and even business ethics.

What remains of the sciences is corrupted for corporate purposes.
What remains of the humanities is corrupted for corporate purposes.
Posted by YEBIGA, Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:12:39 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
Dear Paul,

A Galaxy poll run exclusively for News Limited revealed
people's attitudes in the run-up to Australia Day last
year. One in 10 said Multiculturalism worked very well
and made Australia what it is. As we can see from some
of the comments displayed -
racist elements exist in the community - but they are
a minority. Migration has made an enormous contribution
to Australia's culture, economy, and social fabric.

Australians are overwhelmingly very tolerant and the
majority of Australians approve the benefits of our
diversity - after all of Australia's 22 million people
approx. 44 per cent were either born overseas or one or
both of their parents were born overseas.

Mr Scott Morrison has stated:

"We have learned to appreciate our differences ...
We must come back to the important point of connection
between all of us which is not where we have come from
but where we are going together ..."

Fortunately as shown by the Galaxy Poll -
Most people do not want a racialised immigration policy
because they do not want to have a racially divided society.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 11:02:13 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
<<Fortunately ...Most people [support MC because they] do not want a racialised immigration policy because they do not want to have a racially divided society>>

ROFLMAO -- what nonsense!

MC means a racialised everything!

For the job seeker:
i)Application forms asking : What ethnic group do you ID with?
ii)Interview questions asking: prove you can work amicably with people of non-English backgrounds

For the employer:
i)Bonus points --if not down-left requirements that you be seen to have a *diverse* work force.
ii) A witch hunt if any of your *diverse* work cries discrimination-with YOU needing to prove it didn't happen.

For the bureaucracy of hangers-on repeated measures/studies to gauge how well this or that MC registered group is doing.
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 March 2014 11:29:29 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
The official Government policies have moved over
the years from "assimilation" to "integration", and
then of course to "multiculturalism." The Galbally
Report (1978) was the turning point, when it urged
the Australian Government "to encourage...the retention
of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and
promote intercultural understanding."

Of course as we can see the concept of multiculturalism
continues to have different meanings to different people.
Hidden anti-mirgant prejudices may not be voice in
public until they are highlighted by some well-publicized
event, such as Pauline Hanson's 1996 maiden speech in
Australian Parliament.

Some Australians still believe that a "unique Australian
society and identity emerged with Federation and ...
this identity should be the basis of immigrant
assimilation."

Immigration has always been an important element in
Australia's nation-building. We have integrated millions
of people with diverse backgrounds from over 200 countries and
we have drawn from that diversity of build a successful
nation.

Australia's cultural diversity is a strength which makes
for a dynamic society. Within a framework of laws,
all Australians have the right to express their culture and
beliefs.

What is asked is that Australian citizens make an overriding
commitment to Australia - its laws, its values and its
people. Today the emphasis is on inclusion and mutual
respect. On the whole, Australians support the
principle of "live and let live." Tolerance and mutual
respect towards all people, whatever their background is
valued as a result. It is far that reason that Australia's
national identity in the 21st century is a nation at ease with
the world and with itself.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 11:51:54 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
Rehctub. Suseonline. Banjo.
What you said.
Individual.
Growing up in a predominantly Aboriginal community, a variety of Europeans and White Australians, school was very multi-cultural. We were all kids doing and enjoying the same things. Of course there was the obligatory bully or two who picked on everyone.
As a family we socialized with people whose company we enjoyed and had similar interests.Whoever they were.
In saying that there were certain groups of the community, made up of individuals ( trying to be politically correct) who my naive sister and I found out the hard way, were very racist. The occasional individual would hurl colorful abuses at us and even worse the occasional group would terrify the hell out of us. Then worst of all a mum with cute little kids yelling 'what the f.. you lookin at white c...?' ran a mile that day.
So inevitably a new fear was instilled, avoiding any possible opportunity for their racist attacks, at the same time not affecting the friendships (some to this day) with those of the same race.

We have many friends of many different races, sounds silly even saying that word because they are simply our mates. There are plenty of racist individuals and groups who ignorantly remain that way and I consider it their downfall and loss.
Of course some may feel dislike to a certain race through bad experience. As some have had bad experience with those of the opposite sex. But to hate all men, all women or all of a particular race is extreme and in general anything extreme isnt good. (Mind you some extreme religious beliefs unfortunately play a part and influence negative feelings. That I get)
Posted by jodelie, Sunday, 23 March 2014 1:10:35 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
<<What is asked is that Australian citizens make an overriding
commitment to Australia - its laws, its values and its
people. Today the emphasis is on inclusion and mutual
respect.>>

There are people --perhaps those with the BIGGEST & WARMEST hearts --who place great faith in what people say.

But, it's not too hard to mouth lines like *I love Australian values* (even if you detest them)
or, fight long and hard to stay in Oz (particularly if the taxpayers are paying for your legal bills and upkeep).

But experience should show --even those with the BIGGEST & WARMEST hearts -- that peoples actions often tell a different story to their
(well rehearsed) words--see the below link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrested-a-man-apart-who-fought-to-stay-in-australia/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 23 March 2014 1:24:08 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
'To say 'Australia should stop all Eskimo immigration' is an extreme suggestion and racist.
'To say "Joe the Eskimo was convicted of theft, proves all Eskimos are thieves" is also extreme and racist. So if Joe the Eskimo bought a Jeep does that mean all Eskimos buy Jeeps?
Posted by jodelie, Sunday, 23 March 2014 1:56:24 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
It's been stated many times in the past that our
political conversations must shift away from the
mass, infantile finger pointing that now pervades it.
Of course there are immigrants who abuse our system, just
as there are people born here who abuse our system.

The truth is however that the majority of today's
immigrants bring with them an infusion of the same values
that our ancestors personified. The values that we all hold
dear. These are people who are willing to work hard for
long hours to make a better life for themselves and their
families. Our children do not stand to be corrupted by
their values, so much as their children stand to be
corrupted by ours. The scapegoating of today's immigrants
makes a mockery of the Australian dream. It is a national
immorality when we collectively say no to compassion.

Migrants have contributed to this country economically,
socially and culturally. Migrants have entered the professions,
reached academic positions, the sports, the arts, many have
contributed as writers, musicians, actors, ballet dancers,
the theatre, linguistically - over 270 languages have been added,
higher education has been attained with 49 per cent of all
persons holding higher degrees having been born overseas.
Infrastructure development has fuelled economic growth.
As immigrants setttle here their capacity to build our
economic prosperity increases. And the list goes on.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 2:08:56 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
Foxy,

In previous threads you have made a habit of dumping a quote by Philip Adams that is contemptuous of Australia, its people, traditions and cultural inheritance prior to the relatively recent very large scale immigration targets. It is the elitism and cultural cringe of the Left.

That elitism and cultural cringe to anything and everything that is imported and a hatred of everything Australian is a theme that the serially scoffing (always at Australia) Adams did not invent. It has been a common theme of the Left for donkey's years.

While the Left and particularly the political 'Progressives' aka international socialists are forever claiming the moral high ground for their demand for the 'diversity-we-have-to-have', it is in fact more motivated by an ugly hatred of Australia and more specifically, so-called 'whites'. No surprise there I guess because the Left in the west hate themselves and the successfully democracies which protect them and likely pay their social security benefits.

In Australia the Left extremism, such as green-left and the Greens 'Watermelons' extends to cat-calling young Aussie couples as 'breeders' and demanding that they give up thoughts of the children they might want in favour of open door immigration.

While there might be few Australians who object to immigration and they have shown great generosity and acceptance of ever new records set for immigration, it is true that they have never been asked what they want and they do object to large scale immigration.

It is also true that claims that immigration is always good have been shot down in flames by independent reports of substance and credibility, including one by a Standing Committee of the House of Lords, UK. You and others would be aware of such reports because they have been cited here many times before: the consistent finding is that migration is good for migrants, but the same cannot be said for the host country.

What about some balance and attention to the inconvenient facts? The Left do not deserve the high moral ground they claim for themselves. Feet of clay.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 23 March 2014 2:13:22 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
otb,

Australia is a nation of immigrants. Throughout Australia's
history, millions of migrants have helped build our country.
We welcome people from some 200 countries to Australia and
as I've stated in the past immigration has always been an
important element in Australia's nation-building. We have
drawn from the diversity to build a successful nation.

More than 100,000 migrants from 30 countries worked on the
Snowy Mountains Scheme, a huge hydro-electric power
generating project in the Australian Alps. The project took
25 years to complete, from 1949 until 1974.

Migrants have added to the rich tapestry of Australian life,
and in the words of Australia's "Father of Federation," Sir Henry
Parkes, we have become "one people, with one destiny."

I do not see anything constructive from dividing people up
into the Left/Right political divide. This is a malignant
thought form that "other people are the problem." It is part
and parcel of the malice and intolerance that
currently stalks our society. Unfortunately there are some
people who believe that their way is the right way and
that anyone who disagrees with them is "bad."

Our political conversation as I've stated previously must
shift away from the infantile finger-pointing that now
pervades it.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 2:34:31 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
Paul1405 "To say "Australia should stop all Eskimo immigration." is a view, not one I necessarily agree with but a view never the less and people should be free to express that view."

But how can they if it's "likely" to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the lone Eskimo who, for unknown reasons, reads Australian political blogs?

And nobody would voice such an opinion without providing a more elaborate explanation/justification for *why* they believe that.
That elaboration, no matter how politely worded, is what would get them taken to court.

Foxy "Fortunately as shown by the Galaxy Poll -
Most people do not want a racialised immigration policy"

That's not what the poll asked them.
"Multicultural" can include the dozens of cultures created just by White people.
A policy restricted to Whites only would still have much "diversity".

"in the words of Australia's "Father of Federation," Sir Henry
Parkes, we have become "one people, with one destiny.""

Parkes was speaking to a nation of White people.

"More than 100,000 migrants from 30 countries worked on the
Snowy Mountains Scheme"

And how many weren't White? 3?

"an infusion of the same values that our ancestors personified"

The same values? Why can't they be the same PEOPLE (with the same ancestors!)

So all that matters is that immigrants obey the law, pay taxes and mow their lawns? How "conservative"!
What about *our* existence as a distinct people with *particular* ancestries/histories?

I bet you wouldn't support people from 200 countries moving into Tibet.
No, Tibet should stay Tibetan. Australia must be everything.

Oh, and quit it with the copied-and-pasted-a-million-times government propaganda.
Use your own words!

jodelie "We were all kids doing and enjoying the same things"

All doing the same things = monocultural, not multicultural.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 23 March 2014 4:54:06 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
Foxy,

The cultural cringe of the self-loathing Left has been a fact for many, many years. As is the cultural Marxism that is responsible for the scourge of political correctness.

As Julia Gillard said as PM, discussion of immigration, the 'Big Australia' policy she herself criticised and the 'open door' policy favoured by the lunar Greens (the 'protest party' as she called them) are all legitimate subjects for debate. Julia Gillard also noted that there are interests who do not want that debate to occur and try to derail it. For the present, Australia remains a democracy and immigration policy is a very topical subject.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 23 March 2014 6:19:08 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
Shock,

Regardless of how desirable you may find it, immigration to Australia is no longer predominantly White Anglo-Saxons from the Mother country. For a variety of reasons we have moved on from the immediate post war immigration pattern from Britain and Southern Europe. Today Australia is far more diverse with migrants coming from a large variety of countries and places.
Multiculturalism does not mean only embracing the culture of new arrivals, but also being able to embrace Australian customs and heritage that have developed over the past two centuries of settlement, along with respect and a understanding of the heritage of Indigenous Australians. Respect for others culture is a key to an understanding of multiculturalism and how it works.
Here is a link to a basic teaching aid on the subject which may help you understand multiculturalism better.

http://www.teachingdiversity.org.au/Context/context1.php
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 23 March 2014 6:36:27 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 Shocker,

There's an Avenue of Flags in the Main Street of
Cooma unveiled in 1959 which shows all the various
countries of the migrants who took part in the building of the
Snowy Mountains Scheme. As you seem interested - it may be
worth your while to visit the place.
I'm not sure how many "Whites," there were. There were people
from Rumania, Ukraine, Russia, Cypress, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and many, many, more. However I
doubt whether they were classified according to colour.
Hair-colour - maybe!

otb,

Just for your information.

Tim Soutphommasane is a presenter of the six-part
documentary series - "Mongrel Nation: The Story of
Australian Multiculturalism." He tells us that -

"Social change in Australia has always been accompanied by
cultural anxiety (for some)."

"For some there is a certain "Fortress Australia," mentality
against outsiders."

However, as Mr Soutphommasane points out, "the hardest
work has already been done in accepting differences by past
generations."

Yes, there remain challenges and Multiculturalism isn't
without its tensions. But according to Mr Soutphommasane
"today's Australians, and the attitudes of younger
Australians in particular is on the whole accepting of
cultural diversity."

Mr Soutphommasane ends by telling us that "These to me
at least are all strong signs, you might say, that
a Multiculturalism Australia has come through its
historical trials in pretty good shape."

The current Immigration Minister Mr Scott Morrison
agrees, "We have learned to appreciate our
differences... We must come back to the important
point of connection between all of us which is
not where we have come from but where we are going
together."
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 6:50:34 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
otb,

The following may be of interest to you:

Our current PM - Mr Tony Abbott has stated:

"(Our) Multiculturalism is a beacon of hope to a
troubled and divided world."

He said, "People from all around the four corners of this
earth have come to this country of ours to be welcomed
by us and to build a better life in freedom for
themselves and their children."

Our current PM considers Multiculturalism as a
"Heroic dimension to our national history."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbott-woos-sydney-muslims-20130805-2ra4z.html
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 7:07:35 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
All that we need now ts for our Muslims to embrace multiculturalism and everything will end up rosy.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 23 March 2014 7:22:04 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 Is Mise,

What we all need is for extremists of all persuasions
to change their small-minded intolerance.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 23 March 2014 7:44:59 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
Yes, Foxy, that's what they said in England before the Muslim trouble.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 23 March 2014 9:41:43 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
Multiculturalism appears to me to mean Different things to different people. As a migrant who came to this country in the 1960s before the term multiculturalism was coined, I honestly am unable to discern any difference between pre / post 1978 and the advent of this amorphous word.

Seems to me a multiplicity of cultures were melting together in this country happily enough without requiring a new noun to subscribe its existance. Like so many things government and politicians want to become involved, some merely to win votes and others to finance whole new government departments.

This whole subject is a political construct which serves no good purpose other than to distract public attention away from scrutinising the increasing concentraction of power away from the middle classes and towards an ever smaller corrupt and thieving elite.
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 March 2014 2:31:06 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
This self same corrupt and thieving elite have stumbled onto this idea of fostering racial division to continue to distract and divide the community and thereby continue their thieving unscrutinised.

Thus for the last 10 years Australians have been groomed to first become suspicious of Muslims, to next accept the invasion of Muslim countries, to accept the necessity to torture Muslims who resist our benevolence, to deny them refugee status and confine them in conditions not fit for humans.

You can write all the anti-racist legislation you like it means not a twig. What but our government, our foreign policy and our zombie acceptance of US exceptional ism has planted and nurtured the seed of racism in this country. That we still witness so little racial violence is a credit to the fundamental decency of the australian public and certainly no thanks can be attributed to any of our political parties and that includes the conceited greens.

The current detention centre policy for refugees marks our descent into a brutality I never thought possible of this country. And yet I fear our descent is nowhere near its bottom
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 March 2014 2:51:00 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
"All that we need now ts for our Muslims to embrace multiculturalism and everything will end up rosy."
Is Mise, I don't know if you have had any interaction with Muslim people, I have, going to their home 'break the bread'. Typically, the head of the house is father, but wife has a lot to say and keeps very much on top of things. What do they want from life, something better for their children than what they have experienced. Very pleased with Australia and thankful for the opportunity it presents, not so much for themselves but for their kids. Very proud parents, telling you how well daughter is doing at school, but son needs to work harder or he's not getting his own phone. Very family people, all want their kids to be good Australians and do well. Like all of us they have their problems and concerns, not the least housing, education, employment etc, just like the rest of us. How many times have I heard a Muslim person when speaking about the extremists, say something like "They are not Muslim, they are stupid people, what is wrong with them, don't they know Australia is a good country!"
I am confident, given time and like Southern Europeans (and I remember the problems they had, when they first arrived) Muslim people, by and large will make good Australians. All they need is opportunity, remember people who perceive themselves as doing relativity well are not radical, but conservative, wanting to maintain the 'status quo'. Some may have a social conscience, but the vast majority of them, who desire change, want to affect change from within, working within the confines of the system to bring about progressive changes to society. The violent radicals will remain a small minority, providing the majority perceives themselves as doing well.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 24 March 2014 5:00:09 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
@Paul1405,

<<I am confident, given time...Muslim people, by and large will make good Australians>>

Absolutely...after all, look how well the Muslim peoples in the Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, Northern Nigeria,Indonesia, Malaysia, the Sudan ...and practically everywhere across the Middle ...have become good citizens--they just oooooooooooooze good-neighbourliness... peace and harmony prosper everywhere they go!

YES SIREEEE!
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 March 2014 6:07:43 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
"Thus for the last 10 years Australians have been groomed to first become suspicious of Muslims, to next accept the invasion of Muslim countries, to accept the necessity to torture Muslims who resist our benevolence, to deny them refugee status and confine them in conditions not fit for humans".

and Muslim anti-social actions in Britain and Europe are but a propaganda aide to this grooming.
Atrocities in Africa are figments of someones imagination and 911 was but a simple American plot to discredit Islam.

Pull the other one, it plays Mendelssohn's Concerto in A Flat Major.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 24 March 2014 6:40:16 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
SPQR,

You don't see a difference between Australia and those countries you named? Have a think about it, maybe then you will realise. It is the 'environment' people find themselves in that makes the difference. I'm sure if Australia was like Northern Nigeria we could have lots of problems.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 24 March 2014 6:44:32 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
Paul,

My Muslim friends have sold their home in Bankstown and have moved to a far less Islamic suburb, because they fear the influence of radical Islam in that area, especially on their children.

I know many Muslims, both here and overseas, all are moderate but all admit that when Islam puts out the call then, to survive, they must toe the line.
When did your Muslim friends last publicly condemn the actions of radical Muslims in Australia?
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 24 March 2014 6:49:41 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
Paul.

You remind me of those impressionables who the old Soviet Union or Maoist China would invite over and chauffeur around. They would see all the model state farms and factories. But they would never get to see the 30 million plus who were being murdered or starved. So of course, they would come back all starry-eyed with stories of how wonderful communisms was.

In your case the model factory/farm is the Muslim family living (currently) in a minority position-- in (currently) prosperous, multicultural Oz. If you want to see the true face of Islam go and live with a Christian community in Pakistan or a Baha'i community in Iran (I double dare you!)

You say: <<I am confident, given time... Muslim people, by and large will make good Australians>>
Here's a challenge for you: what if you are wrong, and your policies/programs transform Oz into another latter day Lebanon. What remedial plans do you (and the Greens) have in place?
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 March 2014 7:35:06 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
"When did your Muslim friends last publicly condemn the actions of radical Muslims in Australia?"

Is Mise, So if ordinary people don't publicly condemn something, therefore they must support it? What have you publicly condemned recently?
Recently Mehreen Faruqi entered the MSW Parliament for The Greens. Mehreen is an Australian from Pakistan, a woman, a Green and a Muslim, the first female Muslim ever in an Australian parliament, but that all means nothing. Mehreen was the best of the seven candidates who put their names forward and has shown that the confidence the party put in her was not misplaced. If there were 100 Mehreen Faruqi's in the parliament, the parliament would be 100 times better off. Its all to do with the person, and whats inside, nothing else.
It actually made World wide news.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/539848/pakistan-born-first-muslim-female-to-enter-australian-parliament/
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 24 March 2014 10:39:19 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 Is Mise and Paul,

You might find the following link useful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/opinion/17sallis.html
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 24 March 2014 10:45:41 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
Foxy,

You don't have to be black or white to be an idiot, any colour will do.

Thanks Paul.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 24 March 2014 11:05:22 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 know many Muslims, both here and overseas, all are moderate but all admit that when Islam puts out the call then, to survive, they must toe the line. "
Written by Is Mise
You clearly don't know any Muslims whatsoever. How does Islam put out the call? What does it mean to toe the line?

Lets consider this for a moment, on the one hand there is this global empire with military bases in nigh on 90% of countries in the world, including 6 here in Australia, it routinely invades countries, experiments with chemical and biological weapons, overthrows governments and installs lackeys.. An empire which has nearly half the worlds GDP, which dominates global media, operates an illegal global surveillance system, is contemptuous of UN directives, tortures prisoners, is contemptuous even of its own constitution

And on the other hand, there are these Muslims - who live in some of the worlds poorest countries, countries who have political leaders chosen by the empire, leaders who bastardise their own people.

Remarkably, is Mise, like a loyal patriot you have bought the two dimensional good/evil narrative prescribed for you by the empires media. A narrative you tell to little children. This is the narrative you feel its necessary for you to endorse.

Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi !
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 March 2014 11:07:01 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
YEBIGA,
<< Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi !>>

Shame on you, where are your cultural sensitivities Paul and Foxy much prefer

Allah Aka-bah!
______________________________________

Foxy,

Doesn't take long for you to show your true colours, ah!

Brandishing mementos of Cronulla 2005 --but ignoring the acts that provoked it --ignoring the citywide attacks/violence in its aftermath--and ignoring all the Islamic inspired harassment & threats since.

Typical!
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 March 2014 11:27:23 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
I will guarantee we would have no racism in Oz, if we hadn't let in a whole heap of odd races.

Think on it, & plan a more sensible future.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 24 March 2014 12:24:38 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
YEBIGA,

You're half-right, that there are, as you call them, media medias, with their particular narratives. But there are many narratives besides those, for example: the 21st successors to the Enlightenment narrative of equality of all people, men and women, the common rule of law, protection of the young, and so on.

Multiculturalism can sit a little uneasily with some of those post-Enlightenment narratives, particularly if they have been developed and solidified in regions of the world where the Enlightenment has got Buckley's of taking hold.

Culture reflects and sanctions who has power, after all, there's nothing neutral or always-good about it, and I look forward to the debate about the disjunction between those post-Enlightenment values which Australia is supposed to uphold, and the cultural values which privilege, for example, men over women, men over young girls.

I'm sure even Foxy would agree with me wholeheartedly on this differentiation :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 24 March 2014 12:48:30 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
Foxy's paeans to immigration have two underlying assumptions. The first is that if a little of something is good, then a whole lot more must be even better. (Try it with salt in your food!) It is obvious that there are cultural and educational advantages to having some immigration, and that we sometimes need to import rare skills that don't exist in Australia (although an honest assessment that didn't include the desires of employers for cheap labour and savings on training costs would most likely turn up thousands of such cases a year, not hundreds of thousands. Even Foxy ought to be able to understand, though, that we can't keep doubling the population every 38 years indefinitely. The environment is taking a terrible hammering even with the existing numbers, and while it might help if we all lived like Bangladeshis, any politician who tried it would be thrown out pronto.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

Second, Foxy believes that if something was of benefit in the past, that it therefore must continue to be of benefit for all time. (What about the rate your bones were growing when you were 8 years old?) The per capita economic benefit from mass migration is very small and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. This is the Productivity Commission's Opinion, not mine.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

Also see p. 154 and graphs on pp. 155 and 147 of their 2006 report on immigration.

The Productivity Commission didn't consider congestion, crowding, environmental damage, inflated housing costs, etc. due to the bigger population.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 24 March 2014 1:25:55 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
Paul,

Both you and the censors in Iran and North Korea want to stifle the expression of ideas, even if they are true. The pastors in the Catch the Fire case weren't screaming drunken abuse at some hapless migrant on a bus; they were giving seminars on Islamic theology, mostly for their own people. The Muslims who attended those seminars and reported them went to enormous trouble to be offended. This is about stopping people from expressing inconvenient truths, not civility in public. High population growth via mass migration has ceased to be in the interests of the bulk of the population, but it is still in the interests of the folk at the top. They benefit from bigger domestic markets, rentier profits from ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't even have to train. They are insulated by their wealth from most of the problems they are causing. If only they could shut up the people who don't agree with them -- if they can't have them all like Foxy, singing the praises of mass migration, much as North Koreans sing the praises of their Dear Leader.

As for conservatives being about racism, Sam Harris discusses experiments to get a people's moral intuitions in his book "The Moral Landscape". On p. 125

"In a recent study of moral reasoning [43], subjects were asked to judge whether it was morally correct to sacrifice the life of one person to save one hundred, while being given subtle cues as to the races of the people involved. Conservatives proved less biased by race than liberals [leftists to us]. Liberals, as it turned out, were very eager to sacrifice a white person to save one hundred nonwhites, but not the other way around -- all the while maintaining that considerations of race had not entered their thinking."
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 24 March 2014 2:04:02 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
Where endless, open-ended 'diversity' is promoted as a priority goal for government, can there be any doubt that those who do so use their claimed 'do-gooder' high morality as a blind, a false flag, for their hatred of the 'white' UK inheritance? Especially where they display an elitist dismissiveness and contempt for Australian traditions and culture, regarding them as worthless and not worth retaining, unless revised to suit their own jaundiced view of what should exist instead.

Australians do not object to immigration, however they rightly demand that government always puts their needs and future first. Government needs to remember that it is there to serve the public, not the other way around. To date, there has never been any attempt at meaningful consultation with the public on immigration policy and the diversity-we-have-to-have (who says?).
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 March 2014 2:43:15 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
Always interesting that the federal government can find millions to promote 'diversity', but it never has money to up-grade the national highway, Highway 1, which still has narrow bridges that kill.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 March 2014 2:55:00 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
It appears that quite a few feathers have been ruffled
and now its getting personal and nasty.

No one is anti-white or pro any sort of extremism.
That's such an old chestnut that keeps being brought
up.

People are behaving as if immigration has not been a part
of our country's history. I wonder how many are even aware
of the history of immigration and the contribution that
immigrants have made to this country in so many ways.

For example - has anyone heard of Chris Watson (born in
Chile to a German father) PM of Australia - 1867.

Arthur Phillip - First Governor of NSW - 1738 - German
ancestry.

Eric Abetz - Senator - German.

If any of you were to look up the various ancestries of -
Greek Australians, Irish Australians, Chinese Australians,
to name just a few - you might be surprised - who's listed
and their contribution to this country. Anyone remember
heart surgeon Victor Chang? He saved many people's lives
if it wasn't for him lots of people would have died.
He set up the Victor Chang Institute that specialises in
heart disease and prevention. And he's only one of many
who did good work and Australia was all the better for his
contribution.

I won't go into further details - You're all welcome to
Google this for yourselves - from the Barossa Valley and
the wine industry to our governor generals, politicians,
actors, our music industry, theatre, artists, writers,
famous olympians, technological inventions,
businesses, suffice to say that you gentlemen
should be ashamed of yourselves in trying to belittle
our heritage and telling us it counts for nothing.
You have a very warped outlook - so narrow it can't be
taken seriously.
And if anyone dares to disagree with your opinions ...
Goodness me,
Typical indeed!

No wonder people leave - or choose to ignore you!
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 24 March 2014 3:15:15 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
Paul1405 "immigration to Australia is no longer predominantly White Anglo-Saxons from the Mother country."

I'm well aware of that.
80% non-White these days.
People who liked this also liked: Genocide.

"Respect for others culture is a key to an understanding of multiculturalism and how it works."

I don't want to understand how it "works" (It does?).

Respect for other cultures?
You mean the real thing or the theatrical fabrication put on for "entertainment" in Sydney and Melbourne?

You want the real culture, you're not going to find it in Lakemba or Cabramatta.
The real cultures only exist in their homelands.
I can quite easily "respect" cultures than are on the other side of the planet.

"people who perceive themselves as doing relativity well are not radical, but conservative"

And in the past "doing well" wasn't as difficult.
Past immigrants (when we had manufacturing jobs) were mainly European, which meant less adjustment was required by them or us.

Today's 80% non-White immigration (during a global depression) ain't quite the same kettle of fish, eh?

"Mehreen was the best of the seven candidates"

No, she was the most tokenistic poster girl.
Immigrant, check.
Muslim, check.
Female, check.
I'm surprised she's not also gay and disabled.

Foxy, stop pasting the same Tim Soutphommasane quotes!
You've pasted the same damn comments about 473 times!

Snowy Mountains: "There were people from Rumania (White), Ukraine (White), Russia (White), Cypress (probably White), Czechoslovakia (White), Hungary (White), Poland (White), Turkey (can sometimes pass for White), and many, many, more (mostly White)"

"classified according to colour"

When are you going to get it?
It's not really about "colour".
It's everything that goes WITH that.
Thousands of years of genetic and cultural connections.

"Anyone remember heart surgeon Victor Chang?"

Anyone remember the hundreds of thousands of other Asians who've done nothing special at all?

Anyone remember the two Malaysians who murdered him?
What a "contribution to this country"!

YEBIGA "you have bought the two dimensional good/evil narrative prescribed for you by the empires media"

The threat to our civilisation from Islam existed for *centuries* before America was even discovered.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 24 March 2014 5:12:45 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
Loudmouth
Equating media narratives to titilate an audience with enlightenment narratives who's values underpin anything of any value in our system is a perversity beyond words.

If you are of the school of thought which disparages the enlightenment then you are on the side of oppression. There is no coherent criticism of the enlightenment. The enlightenment project is an unfinished business derailed by Facsists, totalitarians and self hating misanthropic left wing nutters who however unwittingly and well intentioned serve the current corporate hegemony.

The left, the liberal and humanitarian needs to swim out of the relativistic mud pool, wash themselves down, and cease regurgitating a Christian piety dressed up as critical thinking. Demanding fairness for blacks, gays, women, homeless, indigent is not an intellectual position. Its a Christian New Testament set of platitudes. As a political approach it is a kin to begging for scraps. This approach is a mental retardation of the first order. It is an impotent, craven approach which serves but one purpose and that is to make its proponents feel ethical superior. Fine your ethically superior but your intellectually retarded.

The current hegemony will hand out a few scraps to quell the screeching beggar and whilst all the do Gooders are celebrating their victory our enlightenment rights to assemble, to strike, to health care, to education, to work, to decency, to justice, to free speech, to free press... All eroding away. Viva identity politics and lets not forget women too.
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 March 2014 5:50:07 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 Shocker,

No I'm afraid that I don't get the message that you're
trying to impart. To me it's not logical, well reasoned,
and simply smacks of hatred and bile and is diametrically
opposed to everything that Australia stands for.
But hey - you're entitled to your opinion because as
someone else pointed out on another thread - postings
of an anonymous nature on an opinion forum shouldn't really be
taken all that seriously.

Most of us know that there are many bad people from various
backgrounds that do bad things. Just as there are many people
from various backgrounds that do good things. In this country
we're having investigations into the abuse of children,
we've had criminals and pedophiles commiting vile acts,
we've had our fair share of atrocities committed by all sorts of
people. Nationalities don't have a monopoly on evil.
It's for that reason that we have laws in this country.

Anyway, the following link may put things into perspective
for you:

http://www.news.com.au/national/inspiring-tale-of-former-refugee-dr-munjed-al-muderis-and-war-hero-michael-swain-fncynjr2-1226849124080
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 24 March 2014 5:55:48 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
"The threat to our civilisation from Islam existed for *centuries* before America was even discovered." - Shockadelic
Now in the age of the Internet and google, you could easily search the expansion of Islam and the ottomans and it would be clear that the Europeans had entirely neutralised any threat from the Muslim world prior to the formation of the United States of America and certainly well before the USA thought of itself as an empire.

Precisely because our populace is now so dumbed down, people like you feel they can make any nonsensical argument. Now Islam had been a threat but way before the USA was of any significance. The French and napolean and the English have treated the entire region with contempt. You may care to read up on European imperialism. So e familiarity with the subject should prove invaluable to your understanding and who knows you may even discover a new perspective as doubtful as that may be.

Alternatively, you can convince yourself that Muslims really wish to cook you in a pot and eat you during Ramadan
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 March 2014 6:11:28 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
YEBIGA,

" "I know many Muslims, both here and overseas, all are moderate but all admit that when Islam puts out the call then, to survive, they must toe the line. "
Written by Is Mise
You clearly don't know any Muslims whatsoever. How does Islam put out the call? What does it mean to toe the line?"

Well you'd know, being a long distance mind reader.
How does the call go out? Via a goon squad, the same sort of goon squads that harass women in the Bankstown, Lakemba, Wiley Park area for not wearing headscarves or on a more serious note do drive by shootings or bashings in the street.

If you don't know what "Toe the line" means then I'm afraid that you may be beyond help in literacy.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 24 March 2014 7:06:52 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
Foxy,

Firstly the late, great Victor Chang didn't set up the Institute, it was set up in honour of his memory and his contribution to medicine.

"Inspiration
A caring surgeon, researcher and humanitarian, Dr Victor Chang founded the National Heart Transplant Program at St Vincent’s Hospital in 1984 and spearheaded the Heart of St Vincent’s Appeal in 1990.

This Appeal raised much-needed funds for a Cardiac Transplant Ward and Cardiac Diagnostic Unit at St Vincent’s – and created the impetus for establishing the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute after his untimely death [here read 'murder'] in 1991.

Establishment
The Institute, initially under the auspices of St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, opened on 14th February 1994, thanks to generous donations from the late Kerry Packer, AC; the Federal Government; and the Australian public".

and Foxy in your list of contributions from here and there you forgot to mention the Islamic contribution.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 24 March 2014 7:18:26 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
Interesting article in today's SMH under the heading of 'Migrants fear racism, being victims of crime'. Asked to nominate what they "least liked" about Australia, racism and discrimination were listed among migrants' chief concerns. Even a significant number of Kiwi's complained of discrimination. In a 1990's survey Australians were seen as "caring, friendly, hospitable" unfortunately in today's survey this is no longer the case. 40% of new arrivals from Asia reported experiencing some for of discrimination in the past 12 months. Something of interest is that of migrants who have been in Australia for a decade or more 94% of Chinese have taken out Australian citizenship, people of Indian extract also have a very high instance of citizenship, however for British migrants its on 70% and Kiwi's a low 45%. Survey by Monash University.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 24 March 2014 8:09:43 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
Unfortunately, that idiot independent in SA has thrown a spanner into the works of getting Australia back on track.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 6:40:12 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
All along I have suspected the Abbott governments real motives for wanting these important sections of the Racial Discrimination Act repealed. I have never though of Abbott and Brandis as civil libertarians and champions of free speech.
Something happened yesterday in far off PNG that goes a long way towards exposing the true colours of this nefarious government of ours. The PNG government moved to shut down the Justice David Cannings Inquire into the Manus Island alleged human rights violations and the violent incidents which occurred there last month and resulted in the death of 23-year-old Reza Barati.
PNG's Immigration and Foreign Affairs Minister, Rimbink Pato said that PNG was acting ''in partnership'' with the Australian government in having the inquiry shut down. It would seem rather unconvincing that Abbott and co would be arguing on the one hand about extremists rights to free speech in Australia, and at the same time be conspiring with a foreign government to stymie free speech in that country.
There now seems to be some conflict between Abbott and Brandis on the issue. Brandis said "People do have a right to be bigots, you know,
People have the right to say things that other people would find insulting, offensive or bigoted." When questioned Abbott failed to endorse the Brandis extreme view and was rather wishy washy with "(its) in the nature of free speech that sometimes some people will not like it".
As it is presented, we should shut down free speech in PNG, but at the same time let the bigots reign supreme in Australia!
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 6:41:31 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
<<The PNG government moved to shut down the...Inquir[y] >>

Let's face it, for the Greens and their allies "the enquiry" was just another opportunity to muck-rake, to throw dirt at Abbots border controls. If any inquiry had found the asylum scammers at fault the Greens would have said nothing --but if it had even hinted that (asylum scammer) little Ali might have grazed his knee due to a staff oversight they would have squawked to high heaven.
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 7:06:41 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
Hi Paul,

It should not be illegal to be a drunkard, or a perv, or to let one's rented premises go to rack and ruin, although, of course, such life-paths should not be promoted or celebrated. And how do you stop anybody from being a bigot ? Wouldn't it be more effective to confront such bigotry with reasoned arguments ? Maybe not much, but neither can you give such people brain transplants either. Let bigots have their stupid say, as long as they don't incite violence or go beyond the bounds of offending.

But I don't think that free speech includes the right to deliberately humiliate, or vilify, or intimidate. How to draw the boundary between free speech and those aspects would be difficult, but the right to express an opinion that is offensive to someone somewhere should be quite legal.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 8:02:14 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
Abbott and Brandis (not) as civil libertarians and champions of free speech.
Paul1405,
On what to you base this baseless allegation ? Just because you're a champion of idiocy ?
I have seen footage from Manus island where the so-called refugees had pictures everywhere of the bloke that got killed. Are we now supplying photocopiers to them to promote incitement ?
The reason they got so upset is because they have not fulfilled their orders to invade Australia, nothing else.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 8:51:59 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 Is Mise,

Here's a link especially for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/27036.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/inspiring-tale-of-former-refugee-dr-munjed-al-muderis-and-war-hero-michael-swain-fncynjr2-1226849124080

This one you need to scroll down to the "Web results"
until you come to the heading "Inspiring tale of former refugee
Dr Munjed Al Muderis and war hero..." click on it.

And :

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/opinion/17sallis.html
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 9:47:10 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
@Foxy,

So one "refugee" became a war hero.

WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:01:57 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
Joe,

I am with you, I did say I don't see a problem with people exercising free speech as long as it was confined to accepted social norms (difficult what are these accepted social norms). At present for me its not to include in your words
"But I don't think that free speech includes the right to deliberately humiliate, or vilify, or intimidate." (agree)
"How to draw the boundary between free speech and those aspects would be difficult"
"but the right to express an opinion that is offensive to someone somewhere should be quite legal." This is the gray area. I'll give you a hypothetical see what you think.
I have a neighbor, and since we were once friends I know a lot of private and personal things about his past. We have a falling out, would it be all right for me to write a letter highlighting the "ugliness" of this person and make public in this letter I write those private and personal thing, and put it in the neighborhood letter boxes with my name on it. I'm not telling any lies its all true, I'm only exercising free speech and alerting the neighborhood to some info that I feel is in their interest to know.
It might be offensives to him, but my aim was not to offend and humiliate, but to act in the public interest.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:20:04 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
SPQR,
Don't pay much attention to Foxy's links. The one above is from Eva Sallis, an academic socialist (look her up) and then there is foxy's usual of New Matilda.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:22:30 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
Dear SPQR,

Please read the link that I gave on Dr Munjed Al Muderis
(he's not the war hero - but he helped quite a few).
You'll get the point once you read the article.

As for Banjo's reference to "New Matilda," none of the
links I've cited are taken from "New Matilda," so Banjo
is simply stirring - ( i.e. - stoning - using popcorn).
Thought you'd like that!
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 1:17:58 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
Paul,

The sort of situation you discuss is already covered by laws related to defamation

"Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. 'Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.'[3][not verified in body]. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Your scenario implies not just bad manners and a breach of trust (plus a strong possibility that your neighbours would think even less of you than of him), but could actually lay you open to legal action. This is not the same as the sorts of cases that we have been discussing here.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 1:57:26 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
Both Foxy and Paul are ridiculous.

Foxy wants free speech, but it can't be unfettered. And Paul only wants free speech if it complies to social norms.

The term Oxymoron springs to mind. Free speech by definition is unfettered and does not have to comply to social norms.

The proposed changes to 18c removes the subjective requirements for the "victim" to be insulted, offended, or humiliated, and added the objective requirement for offender to vilify or intimidate. This enables someone to express their opinion, but not through their words deliberately try to harm someone.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 2:42:37 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
Hi Paul,

Divergence got in first :) Defamation and libel laws are already in place. As well, creating a public nuisance might cover that hypothetical.

And if you tried it, I'm reasonably sure that your other neighbours would shun you as a trouble-maker, especially if they were friends with your neighbour. You might find all sorts of things stuffed into your own letter-box ;)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 3:27:17 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
YEBIGA "Europeans had entirely neutralised any threat from the Muslim world prior to the formation of the United States of America"

And they did that how?
With conferences and pretty propaganda?
No, with weapons, with war, with expulsion.

We resisted them with our imperial power, but what's happened to our empires?
What's our policy now? Resistance and rejection?
No, welcome mat, open door.

They don't need to plan invasions anymore.
We're letting them in.

You are ignoring the radicalisation that's happened in recent decades.
Muslims today are not the Muslims of 1900 or 1800.
You only need to watch the news to see it.

Foxy, my comments are very well-reasoned.
And I doubt you've ever addressed a single point I've ever made.

All you do is copy-paste official propaganda and MSM.

Where is your well-reasoned argument, *justifying* an immigration policy totally at odds with our history (now 80% non-White), that will result in our stealth genocide?
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 4:47:33 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
Dear Shocker,

To tell you the truth - I don't always read
everything you write. Not being contentious here -
but most of it I find rather nonsensical. No offence
intended.

You stereotype people - and yet you yourself fit
right in to a stereotype of your own - the irony of
which is lost on you. Never mind. You can't help it.
I realise that. Sadly - things won't change for people
like you. You have a one track mind - and it's not
going anywhere. However, the rest of the country will survive
and prosper despite you. And in that we can all take comfort.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-08/raja-we-must-recognise-racism-in-order-to-end-it/5189972
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 5:28:24 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
Shockadelic Said -
"Muslims today are not the Muslims of 1900 or 1800.
You only need to watch the news to see it."

I think after that comment I might be done with this forum entirely.
Posted by YEBIGA, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 5:31:58 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
SM,

Where have you been old chap.
We've missed your wisedom on this forum.
We need your objective musings.
This man is the voice of the people afterall.
(He's the only one with a microphone).
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 5:33:40 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
I think after that comment I might be done with this forum entirely.
Yebiga,
Please explain ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 7:10:24 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
Divergence and Joe,

Thanks, I understand the need for defamation laws and that is fair enough. I only make the point that we do not have a totally uninhibited right to free speech. What the Abbott government is attempting to do is give justification to bigoted hate speech under the guise of free speech.
In the draft released by Brandis today the government wants to remove the words "offend, insult and humiliate" from 18C but still retaining the word "intimidate". An important change is that it will not be necessary to be seen as intimidating an average member of the targeted group, but rather be seen as intimidating an average member of the community. In the Bolt case, Justice Bromberg ruled "that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by [Bolt's] newspaper articles". Given the proposed changes there would be little likelihood that a judge would rule that an average member of the community would feel intimidated by what Bolt wrote.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 7:25:43 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
If you believe all races are equal, why would you be offended by some fool who thinks or says otherwise? No amount of legislation can stop incidence of racial bigotry occurring in our streets, schools and workplaces. The legislation in place is merely symbolic of our increasing struggle with modern reality.

Its nice that so many of us are concerned about hurt feelings from bigotry. I wonder though whether this and much else is in practice both unnecessary and ultimately harmful. Every year we seem to permit governments to further and further encroach into areas it had previously been absent. I am finding this over caring itself oppressive.
Posted by YEBIGA, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 10:39:37 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
There is no such thing as racism in Australia but all the foreigners are racist.
Posted by The Little Grey, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:22:20 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
The Little Grey,
Well, in my experience it is the racists who constantly complain about racism.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 5:37:44 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
The Racist - Catch 22

You know how you can tell that people are still oppressed? Because people are still oppressed. If you claim that you are not a racist person (or, at least, that you’re committed to working your ass off not to be one — which is really the best that any of us can promise), then you must believe that people are fundamentally born equal. So if that’s true, then in a vacuum, factors like skin color should have no effect on anyone’s success. Right? And therefore, if you really believe that all people are created equal, then when you see that drastic racial inequalities exist in the real world, the only thing that you could possibly conclude is that some external force is holding certain people back. Like…racism. Right? So congratulations! You believe in racism!

Unless you don’t actually think that people are born equal. And if you don’t believe that people are born equal, then you’re a f...g racist.
Posted by YEBIGA, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:10:53 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
One little flaw in your argument YEBIGA, it doesn't work.

I must be a racist, & quite happily so. I am also not "committed to working your ass off not to be one". I don't believe people were born equal, & I do believe that anyone who does think so is a fool, & definitely one of the less equal.

I also don't believe that skin colour has anything to do with people being equal. Some are just dumb. Some are born into circumstances that make it impossible to even get to first base, let alone reach their potential. But even with the beat of everything, many just don't have the potentials to achieve anything. Some rise above all obstacles to achieve greatness. Equal, don' be silly.

There is no chance of telling me all are equal, so what does that make me?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:49:18 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
Hasbeen said
"There is no chance of telling me all are equal, so what does that make me?"
Smart! Congratulations, you have escaped the Matrix.
Posted by YEBIGA, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 10:16:09 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
YEBIGA,

Do you see a difference between being prejudiced and racist? Sometimes I feel we confuse the two. In my own experience of a few years back, when I accompanied my new partner for the first time back home to NZ for a "tangi" (Maori funeral). I must admit I was very apprehensive about being the only "white guy" in a crowd of 500 Maoris, didn't know the language, didn't known the protocols, how would they look upon me, I felt very insecure, having to stay at the marae for 4 days, very apprehensive. I met my partners brothers and others for the first time, some looked like classic characters from a 'Mad Max' movie. My fears proved to be unfounded they accepted me as a 'bro' been back several times never had a problem. To a lesser extent I felt a bit apprehensive the first time I visited a Muslim friends house, I recall him chastising his daughter for talking in Arabic in front of us, told her to speak English as it was rude to speak Arabic when we didn't understand what was being said. Out of respect I wont take alcohol to a Muslim house so instead we take a cake.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 10:48:41 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
Paul 1405, "I must admit I was very apprehensive about being the only "white guy" in a crowd of 500 Maoris"

Storytelling has come to prominence in modern rhetoric, but do tell how there was only one 'white' at a funeral of 500 Maoris? A funeral party of 500+1, apparently.

Just going more broadly, it is nothing short of astounding how many teens to 'thirty-something' products of modern education (not referring to your senior self, Paul 1405) are convinced by media reports and articles that are 100% anecdotal and very often third hand, without a shred of evidence to be had.

There are news reports, including by the publicly-funded national broadcaster that rely on anecdote and give the storytelling oxygen, even where reliable sources, for example the ADF have indicated that the anecdotal comments, usually from activists and people with obvious self-interest, cannot be relied upon.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 1:24:20 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
Paul,

If a stranger started screaming unprovoked abuse at me in public, I would definitely feel intimidated, and on a jury, I would be very sympathetic if it happened to anyone else, regardless of race, religion, etc. This is very different from trying to silence people whose opinions I don't like, even if they haven't said anything that is actually a lie or profoundly misleading. I often disagree with them, but in this case, I think that SM and the Liberals have it right: it is about finding the proper balance, not providing a charter for racial abuse.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 2:00:47 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
Foxy "You stereotype people".

Quote me. Who have I "stereotyped" and how?
You are stereotyping me, reacting not to me and my comments, but to some imaginary boogeyman that you presume I am.

Nonsensical?

Again, quote me. What have I said that's nonsensical.

I'm still waiting for your "well-reasoned argument" justifying an absurdly incongruent immigration policy.

YEBIGA "I think after that comment I might be done with this forum entirely."

There were newspapers in 1900 and 1800.
Were there daily/weekly reports of fanatical Muslims committing all kinds of atrocities?
Or is that radicalisation a recent phenomena?

Show me a news report from a century or more ago of Muslims hijacking a ship and burning it, killing all its passengers (the equivalent of crashing a plane today).

Until we see evidence that this radicalisation is fading away, we should be very careful with immigration from their lands.

Of course, if we'd kept immigration restricted to Europeans, there'd be little to worry about in this regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IslamInEurope.png
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 2:36:35 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
Dear Shocker,

There's nothing further to be said.
There's simply no point. I don't have the will
to continue to argue with someone who sees
homogeneity as not only desirable but
mandatory. Ethnic minorities have a right to
be different, to protect
their traditions, ro remember their languages.

As I understand it you don't want to give our
ethnic minorities a choice between the invisibility
of assimilation and the drama of separateness or any point
between. All I see coming from you are restrictions.
No compasson, no tolerance. To me Australia's cultural
diversity is a strength which makes for a dynamic society.
And I strongly believe that within a framework of laws,
all Australians have the right to express their culture and
beliefs.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 3:11:30 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
Shockadelic
When analysing politics and history, one should always keep in mind the possibility that not everything reported is entirely accurate. If for example, one country had military presence in 90% of the worlds States, would it not be wise to consider that just perhaps they should be kept accountable to some degree when things go array?

When the British controlled India and violence broke out by local radicals was it possible some of those radicals had legitimate gripes?

What about the inhabitants of Diego Garcia? Is it possible that some of the may have legitimate gripes about being forcibly removed from their homeland to make way for a US military base?

Did the Vietnamese have legitimate gripes when US forces arrived, were there excesses committed? What about the Shah of Iran? Did the Iranians have a legitimate gripe when the US installed this lunatic as their leader?

Ohh and where oh where did Iraq's WMDs go?

And why were Iraqi's tortured in Abu.graih?
And why are Muslims he.d indefinitely in Guantanamo, and why have none of these perpetrators of 9/11 held in Guantanamo been before a court?

And why are their US military bases in Saudi Arabia? Which is a it like Iran having a base in the Vatican?

Look I am all for cultural supremacy but lets not lie about it and pretend we are the good guys. We have the muscle with our Anglo partners and we will do as we like to ensure we keep things to our advantage.

I can live with that but I can't live with the nonsense of them bad us good. Remember it was us white people who are best at religious warfare, we became Fascists, we dropped atomic bombs on civilians, we invented the holocaust. We are the ones that glorify crucifixion, Christians are trained to suffer like Christ not for virgins but for salvation alone. We conquered the world centuries ago and whilst we like to portray a different image of ourselves to ourselves and the world, the truth is imperialism never ended it just got more sophisticated.
Posted by YEBIGA, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 3:34:47 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
Yebiga,
yes the whites have done terrible things but they have done even more good. They're also starting to realise that helping those who don't want to help themselves is a lost cause.
The non-whites who also did some terrible things have yet to do the good.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 4:19:17 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
Beach,

I would not expect you to understand anything about another peoples culture. I sure in your ignorance you don't understand anything about your own culture. The first Maori tungi I attended was for my partners brother. you would not have a clue as to what a tungi is, it is much more than a funeral, something spread over 4 days. The man was a kaumatua within his community so his tungi drew people from all over NZ. People coming and going to pay respect over several days before the actual funeral. As it was my partners brother the immediate whanau are expected to stay at the marae for all 4 days eating and sleeping there together. Yes at least 500 Maori people attended, some Pakeha came to pay respect also, but I was the only white person who stayed in the marae for the 4 days eating and sleeping there, seeing a part of Maori culture for the first time.
For you my son, who thinks he knows it all, I say ignorance is bliss! Now you are a little bit wiser.
p/s I do believe the tungi of Sir Howard Morrison drew 7000 people, and was catered for by the NZ army, so 500 is not that many.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 7:51:01 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
Paul1405,

Tungi?

Maybe you have someone else mixed up with Maoris. Try Tangi. Here, for your edification,

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/tangihanga-death-customs

But do carry on with your storytelling.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 8:08:28 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
Hi Beach,

Others on this site have accused you of being the resident troll, I wonder why. Done a little Google to found out what a Tungi is. I will spell it how I choose. I normally don't reply to your posts, not after you went on with all your nonsense about Fabians, and your great admiration for Jim Saleam and the policies of The Australia First Party.

Anyway post what you like, its still a free country, well at least until you and Jim take over.

Best regards,
Paul1405.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 8:44:51 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 all foreigners are racist but all racist are foreigners.
Posted by The Little Grey, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 10:23:46 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
Paul1405,

Since you made Tangihanga (Tangi) the feature of your storytelling it would have been useful for you to first check your facts.

Getting prickly and going the personal biff because I corrected your obvious error is a choice you exercised yourself.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 27 March 2014 12:35:41 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
Thanks Beach,

If you find it necessary to make the pedantic point that there is a "u" where there should be an "a" I concede you are up there with "Einstein". Besides I was addressing someone else, not you. Did you feel left out, unwanted, neglected, sorry if you didn't, you should. I can understand that culturally you have never ventured beyond the farm gate and your only experience of anything foreign is a pork chow mein and small fried rice from the local Chinese take-away. Then again being as patriotic as you are, you may be a meat pie and tomato sauce man, a dinki di modern day Sir Les Patterson, that could be also worth another Google.

Cheers.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 27 March 2014 4:39:26 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
With several Tory MP's with large ethnic voting constituency's, getting nervous about the Abbott/Brandis plans for the Racial Discrimination Act, plus the discomfort for the few remaining true liberals in the party. The cabinet has forced Brandis to settle for only a draft exposure bill. In this way the government is now in a position to be flexible on any changes to the legislation. With community anger growing by the day it is likely the government will soften it amendments.
One unnamed Minister said "George (Brandis) had really drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid." Another said the original proposal from Bandis was "much worse" and a third said the original proposal was "terrible". Even the Mad Monk himself was circumspect in the parliament on Brandis's "right to be bigoted' statement.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 27 March 2014 11:05:28 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
Foxy "There's nothing further to be said."

Yes there is.
Your "well-reasoned argument" supporting an inevitably genocidal, historically incongreunt immigration policy.

I have no interest in homogeneity, only sensibleness.

"Ethnic minorities have a right to be different, to protect their traditions, remember their languages"

No, *citizens* have the right to live as they please.
That's "liberalism", not multiculturalism.

What I question is deliberately INTRODUCING dissimilar/unrelated peoples/cultures that would otherwise not exist HERE.

How they live in their own homelands is their own business.
They can wear dresses made from endangered iguana and eat cats if they want.

"All I see coming from you are restrictions."

Only in immigrant *selection*.
Not how people live their lives once here.

"a dynamic society"

Oh, it'll be dynamic alright.
As in "Dynamite".

Just yesterday I witnessed two ridiculous outbursts by "minorities".

An Aborigine walking behind me yelled "Fcuk" (you know what I mean) at the top of his lungs, just to get a reaction.
When I turned around he had a broad smile on his face.

Later I saw a Pacific Islander (apparently a steroid addict) jump out of his SUV and punch a pedestrian in the face.

The only way people like this can feel powerful is by generating fear in others (i.e. in Whitey).
Pathetic.

YEBIGA "We have the muscle with our Anglo partners and we will do as we like to ensure we keep things to our advantage."

How does surrendering our own lands to foreigners fit into that scenario exactly?
80% non-White immigration doesn't sound too self-serving to me.

"I can't live with the nonsense of them bad us good"

I never made such a statement.

"the truth is imperialism never ended it just got more sophisticated."

So did the intention of Muslims to take over our lands.
Passports and babies is much easier than armed invasion.

Paul1405 "With community anger growing by the day"

Yes, who can forget that 400,000 man march demanding censorship of unpleasant opinions.
With the oh-so-sincere mass-produced placards (thank you, Socialist Alliance) with insipid platitudes.
And all the chants in English only.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 27 March 2014 4:38:34 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
Dear Shocker,

A big hug from me,
and have a nice evening.

I've enjoyed our robust discussion.
But I've really lost all heart in continuing
with it.
I'm simply tired.
But, you carry on by all means,
and I'll happily read
what you post.
That's the best I can do for you at this time.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 March 2014 5:33:55 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
But I've really lost all heart in continuing with it.
Foxy,
That's crap & you know it. You're bailing out because the facts are gradually overwhelming your reserves of stock answers.
Those who really care about Australia do not bail out, the're continually looking for solutions.
Posted by individual, Friday, 28 March 2014 6:04:44 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
There seems to be some confusion between race and ethnicity and culture and an unspoken Other political factor, 'different rights for different people because it's "traditional" '.

I'm happy with whoever comes to Australia PROVIDED that they adhere to the established practices in Australia (at least formally), of equal rights before the law, observance of the rule of law (cf. Williamson - seven years - isn't that a message ?), equal opportunity for all Australians regardless of 'race', ethnicity, culture, gender, etc., as well as assistance for members of disadvantaged groups - i.e. genuinely disadvantaged, cf. Bolt - to pull themselves up to the national level.

Multiculturalism must be based on the principles of 'racial' and gender equality and an honest critique of cultural practices which conflict with those principles. Culture, after all, is not some untouchable god, it's not sacred - it is the distillation and sanction of power relations within a group, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years old but not necessarily valid for all that. Human rights MUST trump culture, especially in view of the rights of the traditionally oppressed.

I hope that Foxy will change her mind :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 28 March 2014 6:56:02 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
Loudmouth "There seems to be some confusion between race and ethnicity and culture"

They're interconnected.
Swedes are not Mongoloid.
Koreans are not Negroid.
But apparently, "Australians" can magically be everything and anything.

"adhere to the established practices in Australia"

Ironically, the noble principles often cited by race-neutralists are almost non-existent outside the White/Western world.

In many of the lands where the "Coloured" 80% of our immigrants come from, those principles almost unheard of, with rampant corruption, crime, oppression, misogyny/sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, ethnic favoritism/hierarchies, slavery, child abuse, etc.

You want "civilised" immigrants, you need to choose from "civilised" people.

Goodbye, Foxy.
Again.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 28 March 2014 7:39:19 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 Joe (Loudmouth),

I have already stated on this discussion -
that within a framework of
laws, all Australians have the right to express their
culture and beliefs.

As we can see from some of the comments on this discussion
some Australian attitudes to immigration and
multiculturalism are strongly engrained. Some are suspicious
of immigration and immigrants according to opinion polling.
However over the next few decades Australians will need
to be more receptive to ethnic change and more engaged
with multicultural policies and approaches.

Even if current immigration policy remains in place, the
skilled and educated intake will not be coming from Europe.
Australia is likely to be even more ethically diverse in 2050
than it is now. This will require a political leadership
which encourages tolerance and harmony and which refuses to
advocate narrow nationalism. The political temptation to
mobilise xenophobia is incompatible with a rational
immigration program.

Such a program slso requires a more humane approach to issues
like family re-union, settlement services, and refugees.

To use a wise German saying, "We sought only workers but we got
people."

Future governments may need to be less rigid, less obtrusive,
less directed by public prejudice and more humane than they
had become by the 1990s.

Dear Individual,

When you contribute more than insults to any issue - only
then will you have any right to criticise what others
have to contribute or say.
So go drop your suppositories of wisdom somewhere else.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 28 March 2014 7:54:32 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
Dear Shocker,

Australians who are still suspicious of immigration and
immigrants will eventually have to accept the reality
that racial homogeneity has gone, will not return, and is not necessary for social harmony and cohesion. Australia needs
more people and these will no longer come from
the founding British nations. Australians will have to accept
the growing numbers of tourists, entrepreneurs, and students
from Asia, many of whom are to remain permanently.

This acceptance will have to go along with a recognition of
Australia's dependence for trade and security on its
relationship with Asian states. This doesn't mean severing links
with Europe or the English-speaking world. They also
have growing connections with Asia and with each other, of
which Australia must be a part as so many political
commentators point out.

The sensible compromise between Keating's "Australia is part of
Asia," and John Howard's greater affinity with the English-
speaking world would be to accept that Australia is a part of
both.

It is the responsibility of our governments to explain these
realities. Arthur Calwell, understood very well the need to
change public opinion towards mass, non-British immigrants.
He combined the portfolios of information and immigration
throughout the Chifley governments between 1945 and 1949.

Also government advocacy is likely to be most
effective when it is unequivocal and bipartisan. When the
public receives conflicting messages from the government
as well as from private mass media, this results in
confusion created by the mixed messages and traditional
prejudices are re-asserted.

The arguments and terminology used by One
Nation were not novel but they achieved some effect because
they were repeated by influencial public figures, including
politicians.

For attitudes to change in the future there needs a greater
degree of consensus and bipartisanship than has been at
present.

Bye again.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:24:01 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
One of our multicultural mileposts:

"Hundreds of commemorations will take place to remember Australian sacrifice during World War One (1914-1918) but only one that will remember life taken on Australian soil. But due to political correctness, I am not sure there will be any commemoration at all.
I am referring to the Battle of Broken Hill which took the lives of four Australians, none of whom were in uniform, and wounded seven more.
It started, as these things mostly do, with the lilting sound of “Allahu Akbar” ringing out on the outskirts of Broken Hill. (Pictured is the original mosque.) The date was 1 January, 1915. Shortly thereafter, two men began shooting at a train taking 1,200 men, women and children to the annual New Year’s Day picnic....."

http://pickeringpost.com/story/islamic-suicide-attack-on-broken-hill/3005
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:25:04 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
When you contribute more than insults to any issue
Foxy,
You just can't help yourself can you. Facts are simply too hard for you to accept once the rose-coloured glasses fail.
Posted by individual, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:30:51 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 Individual,

I deal with facts all the time.
But facts are beyond your comprehension - apparently.
I threw down the gauntlet to you and all
you can come up with is more of the same insults.
Sad really.

Dear Is Mise,

If you want to go back that far or even further
in this country's history - you could instead give
things a bit of balance and also tell us about
the Muslim contributions.
Like the contribution of Australia's Afghan
Cameleers in opening up the outback.

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2011/07/australias-afghan-cameleers/

There's also the
Indian army in Gallipoli that's worth a Google.

If all someone wants to do is demean
people, and look for their bad qualities - there's plenty
to be found I'm sure - be it among the Irish, German, Greek,
British, or any one else. But how about what unites us
instead of what divides us. There's enough hatred in the
world - without us contributing to it even further.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 28 March 2014 8:48:57 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 don't know exactly how to gently reveal the truth to some of you.
Multiculturalism may well be a flag that many on the left like to wave but it is essentially a symptom of corporate globalisation. It makes lefties feel good about themselves but its essential for multinational companies and it is multinational companies who most find reason to import foreigners with supposedly skills not available here. If your going to move your call centre to India, your manufacturing plant to china - well, you can figure it out.

Its one big global color gender blind business world.
Somehow the left has convinced itself fighting racism, and gender inequality was all their idea, when all along it is a core Corporate value.

Nothing like the stupidity of the left, unless of course its the stupidity of the Left hating bogan who is also convinced that the do gooder lefty has destroyed his monoculture with this multicultural crap.

And all along, the corporate elite just giggle. Truth be know it is all rather amusing, or it would be if it weren't so tired too. Wakie, Wakie!
Posted by YEBIGA, Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:28:47 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
Foxy,

Is 2012 modern enough?

"Police have used tear gas on Sydney protesters who swept through the CBD as world-wide demonstrations triggered by a US film portraying the prophet Muhammad as a womaniser and paedophile reached Australia.

image

Up to 500 protesters stormed through the city… The crowd carried signs saying “Behead all those who insult the prophet”...

image

Fairfax Media saw a number of arrests and seriously injured protesters. One protester being taken away by ambulance spat at officers and chanted “Allahu Akbar”.

Also being brandished by heavies in the crowd: the black flag of jihad, the green flag of the Hamas terrorist outfit and a sign “we love Osama”.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_let_them_in_now_they_threaten/

Before you say that it's just Andrew Bolt, there were other reports of this happening and there is this on Wikipedia:

"he protest started at about midday when approximately 100 people gathered at the Sydney Town Hall before marching along George Street to Martin Place where the US Consulate is located. Conflict between the protesters and the police started when the former tried to enter the US Consulate.[1] The police used capsicum spray to push the protesters back from the consulate. According to one protester this aggravated the crowd, as many had brought their children.[3]

The crowd then moved to Hyde Park, where around 300 people had gathered.[3] Muslim speakers addressing the crowd called for calm and an end to all violence. Further clashes erupted as police used capsicum spray on protesters who at times threw bottles at police.[4] Protesters chanted "Down, down USA"[1] and carried Islamist flags and signs saying, "Behead all those who insult the prophet", "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell", "Shariah will dominate the world", and "Obama Obama, we love Osama" and threw bottles and objects retrieved from construction sites at police officers. The police responded by spraying capsicum spray into the crowd.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Six police officers were injured of which two were hospitalized.[12]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 March 2014 8:22:12 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
Hi Foxy,

'Afghan' was a term for all traders and cameleers from what is now Pakistan and India, and included Hindus and Sikhs as well as what we might now call moderate Muslims. Religion was not really much of an issue and in any case - at least here in SA - most 'Afghans' married Aboriginal women without much regard to conversion or adherence to strict Islamic principles. I think, in the harsh conditions of the Inland, they were clearly cameleers and working men first and Muslims etc., a distant second.

Is Mise,

So that's the spectrum of approaches to free speech - permissible at one extreme, punishable by beheading at the other ?

And the opportunists of the pseudo-Left will hesitate, ask themselves "What would the US [or Abbott] do ?" and choose the other extreme.

Is that where we're heading ? Foxy ? Do you have a view on this ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 29 March 2014 10:05:08 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 Is Mise,

Thank You for the links.

I was already familiar with these events,

Here's a link for you to place another perspective
on the story. I watched this interview on
Lateline - it's worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3592170.htm

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

As one of the guests on Lateling stated:

"If we're going to defend freedom of speech then we should
apply it to people, as long as there's no incitement of
violence or hatred..."

People have a right to protest. They do not have a
right to incite violence or hatred or anything else
that harms others. And again I repeat what I've stated
over and over again in this discussion:

Individual Australians are free and equal and should be
treated with dignity and respect. They enjoy basic
freedoms - such as freedom of belief and speech, religion,
peaceful assembly and association - subject to the law
and as long as one person's freedoms do not harm others.

We reject the use of violence, intimidation, and
humiliation as ways to settle conflict in our society.

I trust this clarifies things for you.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 11:00:20 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
Foxy,
No "we" don't reject the use of force in dispute resolution in this country, the anti discrimination laws, like all laws are an exercise in the use of force.
The use of force, coercion and intimidation are the standard methods of dispute resolution in all societies in the world bar the imaginary world inhabited by folk such as yourself.
Example:
If you park your car in contravention of local bylaws and then refuse to comply with the demands for compensation by the responsible authority ultimately you'll have process servers and uniformed goons on your doorstep making demands and threatening punishments.
The use of force, coercion and intimidation is just as valid and just as fundamental to the orderly operation of society as are good manners and thoughtful debate.
Face facts some people cannot be reasoned with, they need to be treated roughly and stomped upon as a first step to ensure that they behave or don't get in other people's way.
Example:
I spotted two people parked in a car outside my house the other week injecting drugs, then one of them went into my neighbour's yard and was skulking about, probably looking for a tap to get water. I went out and told them in a level tone that they had to leave, one of them started to object so I lunged forward, pounded my fist on the roof of their car and screamed MOVE! DO IT! NOW!, they went all bug eyed and quickly departed. If I'd tried to reason with them I'd not only have been wasting my time they'd have been left under the impression that people in this street were weak or unconcerned about criminal activity.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 29 March 2014 11:35:33 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
Dear Is Mise and Joe (Loudmouth),

Here's a few thoughts from Prof. James Jupp,
Australia's leading authority on immigration.
He tells us that:

"Globalisation, like economic rationalism and
multiculturalism, has been given many
meanings over the past decades. To some it
indicates that means of communication are now
so sophisticated that a global village has been
created. One implication of that for
Australian immigration policy is that nothing done
here at the ends of the earth can remain immunc
from instant international comment."

"The importance of this was already plain when the
White Australia policy was being wound down.
Neighbours and business partners in Asian independent
states would not tolerate an exclusion policy based so
obviously on ideas of racial inferiority and
incompatability."

"While this lesson did sink in at the official level, it
was slower to gain acceptance in the public arena."

Now decades later some are still arguing that Australia
should limit or exclude Muslim immigrants.

Jupp tells us that, "As a neighbour of Indonesia, the
world's largest Muslim state, a defence partner of Malaysia,
a seller of cars and live sheep to Saudi Arabia, a seller
of wheat to Egypt, and separated from Europe by a swathe
of Muslim societies, Australia can scarcely heed calls
to restrict its Muslim intake."

Exclusion based on race or religion is simply not
practicable in a globalising world.

As Jupp says, "Within the global communications village,
Australia has to learn that it can't implement a
rigorous policy of asylum-seeker detention without this
being immediately criticised around the world."

Attempts to present Australia as a tolerant and
welcoming society which had featured in official
propaganda for decades, is now being brought into question.

As Jupp points out, "Globalisation does not simply mean
free access to information and to markets. It also means
acting in the full glare of media attention, from which
Australia has previously been fairly immune because of its
distance from major centres of newsworthy stories."

Not any more.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 11:51:13 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
Foxy my sweet, who gives a damn about being criticized around the world, Putin certainly doesn't, & he is getting exactly what he wants.

The only people who would criticize us would be those in on the UN con trick of weakening the west, & bleeding hearts. [Sorry, but if the cap fits].

We are only joining the rest of the west, who are suffering under this influx of undesirable bludgers.

Try sending these people to Japan, Malaysia, or any newly developed country, & see what they get.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 29 March 2014 12:25:24 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
Foxy, excellent post once again. YEBIGA there is much about your posts to which I agree, I do tend to be a little bit more circumspect in that somewhere along the line I came to the realisation there is some good in capitalism, if it’s nothing more than the entrepreneurial skills capitalists bring, naturally I also see a whole lot of bad as well, but there is some good to come of capitalism.
On my report card for Australia I give our mixed system a "D", under Rudd/Gillard it was a "C minus" but the bully Abbott in a short time has lowered the mark to a "D". I see little difference between Labor and Liberal governments, more concerned with emphasis that any meaningful structural changes in society. I liken the pair to a car, whither the car turns to the left or turns to the right it’s still a car. I suppose some could argue that as a rich society, we can afford many of the excesses of Capitalism, such as vast amounts of unearned wealth flowing into the hands of mining billionaires etc, but as long as the vast majority are satisfied then there will be little desire for any substantive change. I think communism can be seen as a necessity for poor people and capitalism a luxury for rich people, for the rest of us, something in between will be good enough.
It might be cynical on my part, but I have never believed that because we collectively trot off every few years, and spend half hour on a Saturday going down to the local school and voting, that if that democratic decision does not suit the powers that ultimately control society, they would meekly accept it, with a “Oh well, the people have spoken, and democratically voted in the Communists, we’ll just have to shut up shop and move on, oh dear!
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 29 March 2014 12:38:42 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
Hi Foxy,

No incitement to violence - well, that's precisely what Brandis is suggesting, no right to incite violence. So that's a bit of a straw-man :)

Where should the limits be drawn ? Of course, nobody can stop anybody else from being a moronic bigot (or a drunkard, or liar or etc. etc.) but clearly, most posters here agree that incitement to violence ('behead all those who ....') is not on. Most of those posters would agree, I'm sure, that incitement to hatred, or to vilify, is also not on. Brandis would agree with you on that too.

At the broader end, it is also agreed by most that the right to free speech includes the right to say or write something which someone might find offensive. Or even insulting.

Maybe it's just me but I find the limit somewhere between those two, the right to insult, yes, but vilification, no. In that space, I am worried about free speech extending to the right to consciously humiliate. With two Aboriginal kids, I'm aware of the damage done by words which are intended to hurt. And they can hurt for life.

If freedom of speech can extend to the right to humiliate someone personally, how does one gauge the speaker's intentions ? Perhaps that is my personal boundary - between unintentional and intentional humiliation. How can one tell the difference ? A smirk, a guffaw, may betray some intention to hurt. But many people are devious enough to cover their 'intentions' with a look of innocence. So it's certainly a very grey area.

But the right to offend and insult ? Go for it.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 29 March 2014 1:05:08 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
Foxy,

Am looking forward to your apologetic re the following:

"Faheem Khalid[edit]
Main article: Faheem Khalid Lodhi
Faheem Khalid Lodhi is an Australian architect accused of an October 2003 plot to bomb the national electricity grid or Sydney defence sites in the cause of violent jihad. He was convicted....June 2006 on terrorism-related offences, namely:
Preparation for terrorist attack, by seeking information for the purpose of constructing explosive devices....and collecting maps of the Sydney electricity supply system and possessing 38 aerial photos of military installations in preparation for terrorist attacks
manuals detailing how to manufacture poisons, detonators....explosives and incendiary devices
....20 years imprisonment....non-parole period of 15 years.
His intended targets....national electricity supply system.... Victoria Barracks....HMAS Penguin naval base....Holsworthy Barracks. Justice Anthony Whealy commented....Lodhi had "the intent of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely violent jihad" to "instill terror into members of the public so that they could never again feel free from the threat of bombing in Australia."

Khaled Cheikho, Moustafa Cheikho, Mohamed Ali Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan and Mohammed Omar Jamal were found guilty of conspiring to commit a terrorist act or acts. They were jailed on 15 February 2010 for terms ranging from 23 to 28 years.

In September 2008, of an original nine defendants, five men including the Muslim cleric, Abdul Nacer Benbrika were convicted of planning a terrorist attack. During the trial, the jury heard evidence of plans to bomb the 2005 AFL Grand Final, 2006 Australian Grand Prix and the Crown Casino, as well as a plot to assassinate then Prime Minister John Howard."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 March 2014 1:52:48 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
Joe,

I don't agree, what Brandis is saying to the race haters is, its okay to fill your pockets with stone's but don't throw them, well if you do, just don't hit anyone.
Moronic bigots are of only marginal concern, their thoughts (the little they have) and actions are very much controlled by the intelligent bigots, who might be less in number, but who are a far more dangerous species of bigot. An intelligent bigot will often present as a "reasonable" person, quite often being very condescending towards the minority he targets, often delivering some very nice platitudes "The black man is indeed noble...but!" In his own way Brandis is one of those intelligent bigots. The IB is not always motivated by a simple irrational hatred of others, far from it, he could be motivated by a true belief he is, or his race is, in some way superior to another, or the other race is a perceived genuine threat to him and/or his race and he is motivated by a misguided sense of duty. The majority of bigots on this forum demonstrate evidence of the latter by their very posts.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:02:47 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 Is Mise,

My view points were not meant as any sort of "apolgy"
for Muslim extremist behaviour. On the contrary I
thought that I was trying to stimulate further discussion
and presenting other perspectives on this complex issue.
Obviously I've been wasting my time.

I shall leave you to your "fair" and "objective" points
of view.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:12:10 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 Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

However for me it's now run its course.

Take care.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:18:13 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
Exit Foxy, left stage.

As you go Foxy, consider all the Irish protests in Sydney in the 1960s and '70s. No violence and no arrests.

The Shooters' protest march in Sydney over Howard's "Laws",
Police estimate, 20,000 marchers; my estimate based on marshals' ground counts and photos that I took from the top of a Government building,
37,000, No arrests and no violence.

I wonder what the difference was between these protesters and those Muslims posted above?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 March 2014 2:59:43 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
Dear Is Mise,

Perhaps those people were made to feel welcome in this
country and did not have to face bigotry on the levels
that Muslims experience on a daily basis. Could it also
be that their dress and physical appearance also made they
fit more easily into the community as well. They could
become invisible - whereas Muslims are more noticeable.
And heaven help you if your skin is darker - right?
Besides who would even dream of coming up against a
"pro-guns" crowd demonstating?

Jeese Louise!
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 4:27:13 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
Foxy, "Besides who would even dream of coming up against a
"pro-guns" crowd demonstating?

Jeese Louise!"

Don't you ever let facts and evidence influence your opinion. That would never do.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 29 March 2014 4:58:30 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
Is Mise,

I took part in the Moratorium protest against the Vietnam War in the early 1970's, involved 100,000 people. They were peaceful also, until the police minus their badge numbers, and literally assisted by members of the Nazi Party moved in to arrest peaceful demonstrators. Here is a bit on one 'colorful' member of the extreme right in Sydney Ross May (The Skull), I remember him well, being interviewed by the man himself, Jim Saleam, Fuhrer of The Australia First Party.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kangarooreich/partforty.html

These people will be jumping with joy at the Brandis changes.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 29 March 2014 5:00:48 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 deal with facts all the time.
Foxy,
What, in a Library ?
Posted by individual, Saturday, 29 March 2014 5:10:41 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
I wonder what the difference was between these protesters and those Muslims posted above?
is Mise,
very funny if it weren't so serious.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 29 March 2014 5:13:14 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
Individual,

The very fabric of our society is being changed for the worst, the racism that is Islam is a cancer eating away.

Foxy,

It just might be that the Irish protests were by people who were not inclined to violence, the Gun Owners had the means to be very violent yet they chose not to be violent.

Might have been a cultural differene?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 March 2014 6:07:15 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
Is Mise,
Yes, but our do-gooders rather suffer the cancer than take action. It is very clear that ignorance born of apathy is what helps to ripen that cancer.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 29 March 2014 7:04:57 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
@Paul1405, Saturday, 29 March 2014 5:00:48 PM

You obviously forget the Free Speech Movement. No-one sensible wants to return to the censorship that used to be, and contributed to debacles including Vietnam.

Freedom of speech is the protection, never the threat.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 29 March 2014 7:11:15 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
Foxy "Attempts to present Australia as a tolerant and welcoming society which had featured in official propaganda for decades, is now being brought into question."

Yes, because propaganda is all it ever was.
It was a LIE.
We (the people) *never* wanted this change.

"accept the reality that racial homogeneity has gone, will not return"

Wrong.
Wiki: "More than 92 percent of all Australians descend from Europeans."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Ancestry_of_Australian_population

Aborigines are about 2.5%.

That leaves no more than 5.5% who have neither European or Aboriginal ancestry.

If there was no further non-European immigration, the long-term impact of what we've had so far would be negligible.

It may even decline, as childless people grow old and die, and others emigrate (about a quarter of all "permanent" immigrants leave the country).

"and is not necessary for social harmony and cohesion"

It sure don't hurt.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 29 March 2014 7:11:16 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
Dear Is Mise,

There are many stereotypes of the Irish, being peaceful
isn't one I've come across very often. As for gun owners
choosing not to be violent in their protests. Well that
makes sense. Had they chosen to be vilent then that
would have defeated the point that they were trying to
get across wouldn't it that gun-owners are a responisble,
peaceful-loving group.

Protests of one type or another occur all the time.
Most people usually behave decently. Trouble often starts
with a small minority within the group or when police
arrive. It rarely has anything to do with cultural
differences. I think we need to broaden our outlook
before judging what causes violence in demonstrations.
There can be quite a few causes.

Dear Shocker,

As I've told you in the past - I don't bother reading
most of what you post. You never say anything new.
I find your comments repetitive, unintelligent, and
illegitimate. But hey, that's the price we pay for
free speech.

Dear Individual,

You asked if I get my facts from a library?
Actually I get them from a variety of sources.
However, for your information (because I gather
that you don't visit libraries very often).
Libraries form a vital part of the world's system
of education and information storage and retrieval.
They make available - through books, films,
recordings, and other media - knowledge that has
been accumulated through the ages.

People in all walks of life- including students,
teachers, business executives, government officials,
scholars, scientists - use library resources in
their work. Large numbers of people also turn to
libraries to satisfy a desire for knowledge or to
obtain material for some kind of leisure-time
activity. And of course in addition, many people enjoy
book discussions, film shows, lectures, Storytime
sessions, tours, and other activities that are
provided by their local library.

I hope that helps.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 8:49:27 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
because I gather that you don't visit libraries very often).
Foxy,
I have tried to get information out of libraries on literally a hundred occasions. I have now given up because our libraries are a closed circle outfit catering for academia mainly. The moment librarians get a whiff that an enquiry is not form an academic the doors close.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 29 March 2014 9:15:08 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 Individual,

It sounds like you've been going to the wrong libraries
I take it you've only visited special libraries
whose purpose is to serve their clientele.
Why don't you try your local public library?
They should be more than willing
to help you.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 9:43:34 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
Foxy, "As for gun owners
choosing not to be violent in their protests. Well that
makes sense. Had they chosen to be vilent then that
would have defeated the point that they were trying to
get across wouldn't it that gun-owners are a responisble,
peaceful-loving group."

Another example of your prejudice blocking out the factual evidence put before you.

Most would have arrived at the simple, rather obvious conclusion that it would only be respectable, law-abiding, licensed citizens who would protest in that case. Not a snowball's chance in Hell that they would commit an offence with a firearm because they wouldn't have a licence if they didn't have an impeccable record. These people don't commit offences anyhow. They don't break laws and the police have checked.

All proved and certified as upright, respectable citizens of excellent character unlike critics such as sneering self, Foxy, who would usually not be able to provide any equivalent independent police certified evidence of their trustworthiness and good character.

To sneer that those respectable citizens would only have been deterred from violence because they wanted to make a political point on that day is petty, spiteful and low.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 29 March 2014 9:47:30 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
Foxy (enter right stage)

"There are many stereotypes of the Irish, being peaceful
isn't one I've come across very often".

But you have come across it.

The Irish have always been peace loving, they did squabble amongst themselves but they never invaded another country and only ever took up arms in defence against foreigners who invaded their country and occupied it.

Invaders are fair game.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 March 2014 10:00:57 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
Interest groups use a variety of tactics
to influence politicians. They may collect
petitions, take court actions, advertise in
the media, organise floods of letters to
legislators on particular issues (like anti-gun
control) pledge their members' votes to certain
parties or candidates, donate money to election
campaigns, or even resort to protests, or
even bribery. Frequently they arelobbying the
tactic of directly persuading decision makers
on issues.

I still recall a poster I saw in Los Angeles
put out by citizens against guns.

It read:

"In 1980 handguns killed
77 people in Japan
8 in Great Britain
24 in Switzerland
8 in Canada
23 in Israel
18 in Sweden
4 in Australia
11,522 in the United States

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

STOP HANDGUN CRIME BEFORE IT STOPS YOU."
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 29 March 2014 10:06:49 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
Paul 1405, surprise surprise! the "Neo Nazis" are state agents just like the Anti Fascists! One of the most prolific Stormfront posters using the screen name "Cleric Preston" has recently been exposed as a well known "Anti Racist" from Melbourne who is also an employee of the ATO would you believe. When you see some particularly vile "Hate Speech" online 99% of the time it comes from either law enforcement agents,the bogus "Anti Racist" outfit called the ADL of B'nai Brith, the equally despicabler SPLC or other "Anti Racist" vigilantes trying to entrap teenagers or gullible and lonely people into giving out personal information over the net so they can "expose" them as "Fascists".
"Hate speech" is of no use to Nationalists, it turns people away from our ideas and makes us look crass and stupid, we want to win, how could we possibly take any advantage using the Brandis' model?

You read way too much into the motivations of we "Racists", you seem to believe that we're all invested in "Racism" as deeply as you are.
You have a sexual fetish for non white women, hence your objection to people who find miscgenation distasteful, for most "Racists" these issues aren't so deeply embedded in their personalities, it's just politics.
The demand for a separate nation for the White Australian ethnic group needs no justification, it's self explanatory and it's futuristic, "A brave new world is beckoning so the olden world must die!" we're the authentic Left wing, not the Right.
Abbott and Brandis and all the other liberals can go to hell, we'll be the first ones to be "persecuted" under the new HR laws, as it is they're not enforced but you can bet that once the new amendments pass they'll be locking up our people by the busload.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MOCOmgJ9-g&feature=kp
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 29 March 2014 10:26:11 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
Beach, I only have to mention Jim Saleam and you pop up every time.
I did ask you several times to comment on Jim's rather dismal showing at the last Federal election. You never did reply, no "free speech" on that occasion, just silence.
I'm sure the 'Usual Suspects' on here consider much of the debate on this simply as political point scoring by the "lefties" on those reasonable free speaking conservatives. The free speech, argument is a smoke screen, these Tory wags have never been, and are not now champions of free speech, there is another motive and that is to give right wing journalists and others the freedom to vilify at will.
take note of what one of your own Barry O'Farrell had to say on the Brandis comment.

NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell has criticised comments by federal Attorney-General George Brandis that people have the right to be bigoted, declaring that vilification on the grounds of race or religion is "always wrong".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/racism-always-wrong-barry-ofarrell-takes-aim-at-george-brandis-over-right-to-be-bigoted-20140327-35ju5.html

I consider Barry to be wrong 99% of the time, but I agree with him 100% on this one!
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 29 March 2014 11:23:46 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
Paul as far as I know (not having met them personally) Jim Saleam and his group see themselves only as provocateurs, they run in elections to annoy the other candidates and to mock the system, it's the same mentality as Joe Toscano and his Anarchist club standing for office, the whole point is to embarrass the elites, not to take power.
As I said, due to your sexual preferences you take this idea of "Racism" far more seriously than Nationalists do, most of us would retain the HR laws if we somehow found ourselves governors, it's just that we'd enforce them equally across the board and to the letter.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 30 March 2014 7:31:14 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
Hi Paul,

I don't think Brandis was advocating bigotry, just pointing out that it wasn't illegal to be a bigot, since it's impossible to outlaw it. As some posters have pointed out, let a bigot open his mouth and show what a fool he is. I'm reasonably sure that even Brandis would rather people were not bigoted, but that's the real world.

Nothing to see here :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 30 March 2014 8:33:06 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
It read:
Foxy,
And which is the supposedly most multicultural country out of these ?
Posted by individual, Sunday, 30 March 2014 9:03:15 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
Foxy (centre stage)

Says....
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 30 March 2014 9:12:18 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
Joe,
There's also the fact that bigots who choose not to express their thoughts in English will get away scot free while only the ones who can be understood by the White and Jewish "Anti Racist" vigilantes will be hounded, humiliated and prosecuted.
What's more upsetting is that these bourgeois White and Jewish vigilantes are nothing but bullies themselves,they target the poor, mentally unstable, addicted and incompetent in their "campaigns".
Has there been a single outrage of late where the "Racist" aggressor was not impaired in some way?
These "bus rant" videos which have become the mainstay of activism for the "Anti Racist" keyboard commandos all feature unwell, obviously low IQ or inebriated protagonists who are always riled up and egged on by the interjections of other commuters.
We don't publish videos of abusive,inebriated, low IQ or mentally unwell Aboriginal commuters online because it's considered bullying a soft and helpless target, why is it OK to publicly humiliate White people in the same condition as with the Peta Nugent train video?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 30 March 2014 10:54:11 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
Foxy says that Australia needs a bigger population. Why? Back in 1994 the Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit. A lot of the environmental and other problems that they predicted back then as a result of high population growth have indeed come to pass. See the Executive Summary of the government's own Long Term Physical Implications of Immigration report.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/physical-implications-migration-fullreport.pdf

What do we need the Academy of Science or the CSIRO for though, when we have the wisdom of Foxy?

The defence argument the growthists put up makes no sense. Are the Chinese or Indians with more than 1 billion people each, or even the Indonesians, going to be quaking in their boots because we have 40 or 60 million people? Densely populated countries and even some big densely populated countries such as China still got invaded during WWII.

According to the Productivity Commission, the per capita economic benefit is very small, even neglecting a lot of the environmental and other problems caused by the growth, and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. See p. 154 and the graphs on pp. 155 and 147 of the 2006 report on Immigration, also

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

I don't dispute the cultural or educational benefits of having some immigration, or that sometimes we really do need to import skills, just the enormous numbers that are set to double our population in 38 and a half years.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 30 March 2014 2:07:38 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
The concerns about 18C and D are related to what could be done with them by activist judges, due to vague language and lack of objective tests. It is like the situation with Senator Conroy and Labor's internet filter (thankfully abandoned). From the details reported in the media at the time, there would be no restrictions on the type of sites that could be banned. Proceedings would be in secret, and the list of banned sites would be secret, although it would be illegal to link to them. There would be no appeal.

This is what Anthony Dillon, who is part Aboriginal himself, wrote in the March 27 Australian:

"Political correctness, with regard to people who identify as Aboriginal Australians, has reached the ridiculous stage where one can be accused of being racist simply by questioning the motives of some people who identify as being Aboriginal.
"Or there is the obvious elephant in the room. Why is it that someone with multiple ancestries chooses to build their identity around being Aboriginal, when having only one of your 16 great-great-grandparents being Aboriginal qualifies you to claim being Aboriginal? People are free to identify how they wish, but they should not be surprised when they are questioned about it.
"And those who question should feel free to do so without being branded a racist, even if someone claims, 'you hurt my feelings'. Such a claim is really saying, “those who question me have more power over my emotions than I have over them”.
"While claims of being a victim of racism can result in one being elevated to the status of hero, the myth that Australia is a racist country prevents important discussions from taking place: discussions about how to tackle the tough problems of sickness, poverty, alcohol abuse, poor educational outcomes, unemployment...
"Accusations of racism are, for a few, a convenient distraction from tackling real problems. They can elevate the status and careers of a few.
"People avoid addressing these tough issues because they are difficult to tackle and are problems for which Aboriginal people must be part of the solution."
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 30 March 2014 2:26:49 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
Dear Divergence,

Prof. James Jupp, Australia's Immigration Authority
tells us that, "Australia's fertility rate fell below
replacement in 1976 and has never recovered. On the
example of all other developed societies, it
is never likely to. On the other hand, it is still well
above the level of Japan, Italy, Spain and most
European states. Population is increasing, in contrast to
Russia where it is actually falling. In the longer term
Australia can expect its population to peak, within
twenty years and then to decline, unless sustained by a
robust immigration program."

"The process of ageing will also increase the proportion
dependent on pensions and savings making the heaviest
demands on helath services. Immigration cannot prevent
this without massive additions. But it can provide increased
numbers in the working ages to support the dependent elderly."

"The impact of ageing and decline is already apparent in
South Australia and Tasmania and is a source of concern to their
governments. While life in Adelaide may be comfortable
and Tasmania is a rural paradise, both states have consistently
had the highest unemployment levels in Australia for many
years. Consequently they lose younger people to the
metropolitan cities, exacerbating the effects of population
stagnation. Attempts to reverse the situation in these two
States by special visa provision have had only marginal
effects. Nor have they benefited from temporary migration,
which might have increased their labour force. As models of
zero population growth they are not very reassuring."

"By 2002 most interested parties were turning their backs on
zero population growth. The Population Summit, called by
the Victorian government in February 2002, saw a remarkable
degree of agreement that declining fertility was a problem
requiring public policies to sustain population growth..."

Anyway you get the idea. There's much more on this subject
that deals with future stabilisation - all I can suggest is
that you get hold of a copy on this subject by Prof. James
Jupp from your local library. It is worth a read.

Or you can continue to slag off at me on this forum.
Your choice.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 30 March 2014 2:58:03 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
Just another academic and there are others with different opinions for guvvy grants.

Wasn't it academics who convinced the population of the need to ZPG in the first place? Some here would remember the extensive scare campaign about finite resources, especially water and food, and the maps showing the amount of Australia that was unsuitable for agriculture.

Has Australia's geography changed since?

It is amazing that Foxy and others who are adamant about global warming, which academics also say will reduce the available farming land and water supplies, are also unrelenting supporters of mass migration. Compartmentalised thinking of those who are so bigoted against against our 'white' inheritance and traditions, including democracy it would seem, that they require endless diversity to obliterate their hated 'nullaboring' 'whites'.

While Foxy et al like to pretend that anyone who is critical of their 'open door' immigration policies is against all migration, and assert that Australians are racist xenophobes for asking for some say in it, it is a fact that policies like Rudd's 'Big Australia' and open door for people smuggling are electorally highly unpopular.

It is going to be a very long six years for some, and another six after that if Labor continues to be led by the nose by the political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists who have staged a successful takeover of its structure. That was to the chagrin of Labor supporters who have been formally denied any say. The self-described wolves in sheep's clothing, the 'Progressives', corrupted and formalised the leadership vote to warp the value of Labor members votes.

The political 'Progressives' who control Labor presume to always know what is best for everyone. That is Labor members votes should not matter and nor should the result of the last federal election. That is the 'Progressives' and their International Socialist agenda.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 30 March 2014 3:47:46 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
Foxy,

The problem with the ageing argument is that migrants grow old too, just like everyone else, and they cannot be deported once they have outlived their value to the economy. What happens when the migrants also need pensions and healthcare? Do we then take in still more migrants, now that we have an even bigger aged population? Where do you see the process ending? At standing room only? A number of countries with very low or no population growth, such as Germany, Japan, and Finland are still on the UN's very high human development list and also tend to be have less inequality.

By the way, I was opposing massive population growth, not a bit of net immigration to top up a population to keep it at an optimum level when the fertility rate is too low, although I question whether this would really be necessary. Very low fertility rates are associated with economic insecurity, overcrowding, and high housing costs, all exacerbated by high population growth. See the demographer Joel Kotkin on this. Desired family size is high enough in Australia to stabilize the population without net immigration. See

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport11/aspirations.html

The real reason that high population growth is being pushed is because it is in the interests of the 1%. They get bigger domestic markets, rentier profits form ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't even have to train if the growth is from immigration. They are insulated by their wealth from the harm they are doing, unless they actually care about other species going extinct. You are acting as their cheerleader.
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 30 March 2014 3:58:51 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
Foxy, at least I write my own comments.
I don't just copy-paste other people's words.

As for the aging, pensions and unemployment argument, pensions are paid by the Federal government, so it doesn't really matter how much employment or unemployment there is in any state or region.

Pensions are paid from taxes collected nationwide.
Taxes can apply to any financial events, not just salaries.

We will not need the same number of workers in the future, as more and more "work" is done by machines and computers.

The businesses operating those machines will still be generating wealth though and can be taxed (to pay the pensions).

The only way immigrants would affect aging is if they were substantially lower in age than the general population.
That is not the case.
Nor do we refuse entry to persons over the age of, say, 35.

And even if those economic arguments were correct, it still doesn't mean we need to select dissimilar/unrelated people (i.e. non-Europeans, currently 80% of intake) to be the new workers/taxpayers.

And as for your repeated assertions you will leave this or other discussions:
Imagine we're approaching a future election.
Just prior, there are several front-page incidents involving minority violence. (It will happen one day, trust me.)

The election issue becomes pro or anti "diverse" immigration.
The pro side quote the usual propaganda/platitudes, snub and scoff, evade and mock.
Then "disappear" ("I'm so over this!") days before the election.

Who do think will win?
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 30 March 2014 4:08:46 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
Dear Divergence,

A pleasure to read your most recent post - and
of course you do raise some very valid points.
I certainly don't have all the answers (that's why
I do tend to go to the experts - occupational habit),
and when I've finished reading Prof. Jupp's various
chapters on the subject I'll let you know what he has
to say from his expertise.

Prof. Jupp is Director for
Immigration and Multiculturalism Studies at the
Australian National University. His many publications include -
as general editor, "The Australian People: An Encyclopedia
of the Nation, its People and their Origins,"
"From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian
Immigration," and quite a few more.

However, I found that his last book mentioned above
of great use. Both by myself and students.
In it James Jupp, Australia's leading specialist on
migration, surveys the changes in policy over the last three
decades since the seismic shift away from the White
Australia Policy.

Along the way he outlines the history of Australian immigration,
campares the achievements of the Fraser, Hawke and Keating
governments and considers the establishment of the
"institutions" of multiculturalism and ethnicity.
Jupp looks critically at the ways economic rationalism,
the rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation, and the
population debate, have impacted upon migration choices.
The issue of refugees and asylum seekers is also covered in
great depth.

It's a useful read.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 30 March 2014 5:32:59 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
Foxy,

Both you and the good Professor left out the effect of Islamic terrorism, general belief in the Qur'an and a proclivity of some Muslims to have multiples of wives and consequently many children, particularly where child rearing gets a tax-payer funded subsidy .
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 30 March 2014 6:09:31 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
Foxy, "Both by myself and students"

What students in what context?
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 30 March 2014 6:14:11 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
Superannuation is meant to reduce old age pension demand (and budget) applicable to very many of those silly old codgers who insist on getting even older and retiring to 'the ranch'.
That's why there is compulsory super.
That's also why the taxation arrangements relating to super are so attractive - even inducing 'extra' contributions.
Those self-employed who haven't contributed to their own super have missed a great opportunity, and to some extent have 'let the side down'. But, of course some may not have been in a position to contribute due to business difficulties, and that's a pity.

Super funds have also amassed a great deal of capital, which has been invested in driving industry and development, resulting in jobs, wages and resultant tax paid, and the 15% tax automatically paid on all super-fund profits goes directly to Federal revenue.
The taxes on super and from the industry and jobs created should be pooled into a fund to provide for the health and aged-care needs of those retirees (who have 'made' the super-fund industry) and who have paid their taxes throughout their working lives.
If the government fritters away the returns from super and from the taxes paid by the aging community, then it is the government's fault if the health-care and aged-care budgets run into trouble.

Eventually it will have to be realized that continuous world population growth is a dead-end story.
There was a time when people had to 'do' for themselves. No welfare.
That time may come again, and people will have to learn to do more with less.

There is no world economy 'silver bullet' which would enable current levels of affluence to prevail with a world population of 10 billion or more, and no amount of star gazing can change that reality.

Immigration is not an answer to fire-proofing our economy, or providing for our 'aging' population. Immigration can only be a band-aid, for which future generations will pay.
We (and the world) need to live within current and future 'real' means. (We don't want to join the PIGS 'club'.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 30 March 2014 10:41:12 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
@ Saltpetre, Sunday, 30 March 2014 10:41:12 PM

Good post.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 30 March 2014 10:56:57 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
Saltpetre "There is no world economy 'silver bullet' which would enable current levels of affluence to prevail with a world population of 10 billion or more"

The world can't have our level of affluence.
But *we* can (and do).

But if you want to know what our future living standards are, look at the countries most of our immigrants are now coming from. (Surprise, it's not Europe!).

If they can't get their act together in their homelands, how do they magically work wonders as soon as they arrive at Sydney airport?
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 31 March 2014 7:00:18 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
Shockadelic,

They are doing OK in the "Middle West" of Sydney, buying ordinary cottages, knocking them down and building luxury two storey "houses' to replace them'

I recently Googled a house that my father rented in Auburn when I was 4-5 years old, it and the house next door have gone and a mansion now fills the two blocks.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 6:29:14 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
Is Mise,

And, is not Auburn now an 'ethnic' neighbourhood?
Thus, that former residence is likely to have been 'renovated', and subsequently occupied, by a none-too-well-off immigrant (or two)?
Tends perhaps to put a new light on assimilation 'potentials'?
(Not that I am criticizing, just commenting.)
(I wonder what ethnicity? Just out of interest.)
(Not possibly some out of character development perhaps, per ill-gotten gains from new 'enterprise', like drug dealing or people smuggling, I wonder? Maybe I am of little faith? Or, perhaps inappropriately reluctant to give credit where due?)

Shockadelic,

I was not suggesting any significant increase in immigration. On the contrary, I was posing that substantially increased immigration would at best be a short-term 'band-aid' for our economic woes, with a nasty future 'sting' in the tail for future generations.
I could be very wrong of course, but I have a conviction that any substantial increase in world population can only be retrograde in the longer term, and our taking increasing numbers of immigrants I see as contributing to an ill-advised world population increase.

As for immigrant 'influence' on our national psyche and character, from what I have seen, the 2nd generations of almost every ethnic intake, where they have been able to attend a 'state' public school, often seem even more 'ocker' than I am.
That is only a casual observation of course, and the other side of that general 'coin' is the advent of some seemingly 'ethnic' criminal gangs, and some other problems with the youth who are unable to find 'legitimate' employment.

Hence, unemployment (lack of jobs) is a major problem, which will not easily be solved, and I don't see our government coming up with solutions to this (at least, not as yet).
Some quite extensive new industry is desperately needed, and perhaps some new and innovative immigrants may provide the means?
Have 'we' perhaps become too lackadaisical, too spoiled, or too uncertain or fearful to 'take the plunge' and innovate?
New blood, new capital, new vision - and the guts to have a go?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 2 April 2014 10:43:47 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
Classic innuendo! "And, is not Auburn now an 'ethnic' neighbourhood?" yep, lots of Turks live in Auburn, as it was 20 years ago. Old 'ethnic' neighborhood, fairly harmless statement. lets move on "Thus, that former residence is likely to have been 'renovated', and subsequently occupied, by a none-too-well-off immigrant (or two)? Its been 'renovated' now this getting a little suspect, immigrant (or two) or three or four a whole bloody tribe! What's coming up next, begs the question? "Tends perhaps to put a new light on assimilation 'potentials'?" Casing a wee bit of doubt there about this infestation but the obligatory qualifier "Not that I am criticizing, just commenting." After all I'm just being reasonable. A little harmless inquiry "I wonder what ethnicity? Just out of interest" as I said there are not Eskimo's mostly Turks. well Turks that must set the alarm bells ringing. Time for the cruncher!
"Not possibly some out of character development perhaps, per ill-gotten gains from new 'enterprise', like drug dealing or people smuggling, I wonder? Maybe I am of little faith? Or, perhaps inappropriately reluctant to give credit where due?"
Well, well, well what do we have now, Its evidence of the criminal activity of evil ethnics.
Saltpetre, could you please post up a picture of your house, preferably painted purple, so I can immediately determine if you are a drug lord or not,
A Turk I know who lives in Cumberland Road Auburn, works 6 days a week in the construction industry. Bought an old rundown place years ago, since knocked it down and put up a 2 story job. I would say a great example of an ethnic making good in his adopted country. I forgot to mention the blokes a Muslim. How do I know him, I worked with him, we brought a ute off him and I've been to his house.
Call in to the Auburn RSL now and then great buffet, $3.50 schooners, but then again might be best to keep out of Auburn, full of evil ethnics, never know what they might do to you.

http://www.superchoicebuffet.com.au/
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 3 April 2014 5:07:13 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
Hasn't been a shooting in Auburn for a while, last really newsworthy one was when the C of E Hall got peppered.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:01:08 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
Alcohol-fuelled youth violence continues
in major cities around the country:

http://theconversation.com/king-hits-young-men-masculinity-and-violence-22247
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:12:00 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
@Paul1405

<<Auburn ...>>

Talking through your hat again Paul ...or least ways just repeating what they fed you in Greenie Sunday school!

I used to live in Auburn, not far from the places you name dropped --and it ain't anywhere near as rosy as you fantasize-- see here:

"A RIOT by Muslim youths in Auburn last week was organised via Facebook, police believe.The troublemakers used the social networking site to flash up inflammatory references to police and rally their friends for a confrontation.One update identified police as 'non-believers' who were raiding a "brother's home". More than 150 people gathered in Cumberland Rd, Auburn, on Tuesday night, forcing police to call in 100 officers, the riot squad and a helicopter."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/facebook-website-used-to-drum-up-auburn-rioters/story-e6freuy9-1225772429876

And the above is NOT a once-off isolated incident!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:36:20 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 SPQR,

SteeleRedux appears to have you summed up very nicely.

How about your Googling the "Auburn City Council's
Crime Prevention Plan 2013 - 2016."

It just might give you a clearer perspective on the problems
in the area.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 3 April 2014 3:20:55 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
@Foxy

No Dear I don't have to --I lived there remember!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 3 April 2014 4:14:30 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
And here's another despatch from the Auburn-front:

<< ETHNIC tensions among Sydney's Muslim population are being inflamed by the conflict in Syria, with the opposing sides trading death threats and warnings of violent civil unrest.

Jamal Daoud, a refugee advocate standing for election to Auburn City Council in Sydney's west, has received a number of such threats after criticising what he calls the role played by "terrorists" in the Syrian civil war.

A series of anonymous text messages and telephone calls include a warning that his house will be shot at as well as other threats to kill Shia Muslims living in the suburbs of Auburn and Bankstown.

Mr Daoud, who is of Sunni Muslim descent, said tensions between the groups could lead to violence, with individual members already choosing to arm themselves and accusations flying of ethnically-motivated attacks on local businesses.

"Some of them are getting batons and sticks to defend themselves. We can't go on and on until someone is killed," he said. "It could progress to civil unrest. If they can burn businesses, other people can burn businesses, too. If they can shoot people, other people can shoot people, too."

A number of official sources said there were divisions within the community, but NSW Police said there was no evidence of people arming themselves, and that authorities were working hard behind the scenes to build relationships between the groups.

Several shootings in western Sydney earlier this year have anecdotally been linked to disputes sparked by the Syrian conflict, though senior police have denied religion or politics was a motivation for these alleged attacks.

The death of a Sydney sheik, killed in a rocket attack in Syria last week, has focused attention on the effect of the Syrian conflict on Australia's Muslim community. Thirty-year-old Mustapha al-Majzoub was known to counter-terrorism authorities because of his extremist views, although his family and other community leaders have denied this.>>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/syrian-conflict-fires-local-muslim-strife/story-e6frg6nf-1226461150858

I'll bet they did NOT tell Paul1405 anything about that in Greenie Sunday school --And, I'll wager that Foxy found NO reference to it on any of her favoured sites either!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 3 April 2014 5:32:47 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
Saltpetre, you mention both domestic unemployment *and* immigration to solve economic problems.

I cannot see how these are not contradictions.

Why would we need so many immigrants, when we already have such a labour surplus?

Particular "skills"?
I find it hard to believe that Lesotho and Nepal have better educational/training systems than Australia.
Or indeed any Western nation.

I find this skills "shortage" claim to be utterly bogus.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 3 April 2014 5:52:09 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
SPQR,

Like many suburbs of Sydney, Auburn has its fair share of social problems. Unfortunately too many want to stereotype and stigmatise people because of their ethnicity. What is needed for some, is a reality check, no matter how much you or others yearn for a return to the "good old days", its simply not going to happen. Nor will those who believe that if some how they could construct "Fortress Australia" and exclude all those they believed to be undesirable, all would be well, I have news for you, it ain't going to happen.
Immigration by its very nature presents problems for both the new arrivals, and the old established hands. People can choose to be negative about immigration and resist the inevitable changes that have and will continue to take place, or they can choose to be positive, and work to make Australia a better place than it would otherwise be.

Foxy;I must say the "Auburn City Council's Crime Prevention Plan 2013 - 2016." is the kind of initiative that helps communities deal with issues like crime. Despite the negative attitudes of some. there is a lot of positive work being done for both our newest of arrivals, and also for the oldest people who's ancestors inhabited the continent.

http://tribalwarrior.org/ Doing a great job!
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:46:15 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
SPQR, are you sure you lived in Auburn Australia, and not Auburn Alabama (there is such a place). I was positive you would be one of dem dar Good Ol' Boys, from Alabama. Possibly the Grand Wizard himself, minus the bed-sheet.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:01:05 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
Hay, SPQR/Rip Van Winkle, your dispatch from the "Auburn Front" is dated 2012. How was it dispatched, by horse and cart? The year is 2014, sorry for the breaking news, and this might come as a complete surprise, World War I is over, and Queen Victoria is no longer on the thrown. Just though I would let you know. Now, what was I saying about people living in the past LOL.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:11:34 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
Paul

LOL see you've got me all wrong. I remember you saying in a earlier thread you pictured me dressed in some posh private school uniform!

I probably had a much more plebeian upbringing than you --and that's why I can see through all the Lefty propaganda.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:13:04 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
Paul,

<< your dispatch from the "Auburn Front" is dated 2012...>>

Soooooooooo?

The Cronulla "riot" happened in 2005 --yet your side kick Foxy cites it in at least three posts each week!
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:18:25 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
SPQR,

the Plebeian...

1. One of the common people of ancient Rome. (I don't think so)
2. A member of the lower classes. (possibly)
3. A vulgar or coarse person. (most definitely)

Okay your a Pleb, if you insist.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:57:10 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
Ok, so we've all got something to say, but at least we should address the topic legitimately and read each others' posts honestly - without 'constructing' interpretations which are demonstrably off-target and self-serving.

Main culprit - Paul, who persists in pushing his Green and anti-Coalition barrow all the way down our throats until we are heartily sick of it - and getting obnoxiously insulting whenever anyone deigns to contradict his stereotypical bias.
Pleb or self-confessed 'engineer'? Who cares, but the high-horse has a distinct 'lean'.
And, for info, one 'example' does not justify a broad-brush 'conclusion' of evidentiary 'proof'.
(And, I was not accusing anyone of criminal activity, just posing a question and hoping for an informed response regarding the general quiescence or otherwise of Auburn's inhabitants. Though I see how my question could be misinterpreted. Apologies for that.)

Yes, like many other 'ordinary Aussies', I do have some potentially 'racist' concerns regarding our immigration direction (and our Muslim intake would feature in that, with my preference being for Asian immigrants, particularly from China or India) but always in only reasonable numbers; no 'big Oz' for me.
I don't have any real problem with Turks or Palestinians, it is the radical ultra-orthodox types (Muslim or otherwise) who give me some concern, so shoot me for being 'conservative'.
(And I have made reference to successful 'assimilation', if you'd care to note.)

Shockadelic,

I do not support increased immigration (as my posts clearly indicate - >Immigration is not an answer to fire-proofing our economy< >Immigration can only be a band-aid, for which future generations will pay.<) - but you continue to misinterpret.
I did however mention unemployment, with a suggestion that what we need most is more jobs - per more, and 'new' industry - and that one possibility for achieving that industry (and jobs) could be via some enterprising and entrepreneurial cashed-up 'new blood' (immigrant(s)) from abroad.
Do you really have a problem with that?
Not masses of skilled or unskilled immigrants, but perhaps a select few potential industrial magnates to get us off our backsides.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 4 April 2014 1:16:03 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
Salty,

I do indeed push a Green agenda, I freely admit that, As for my posts there is a bias, I admit that too, but to speak on behalf of others as you do by invoking the 'we' word is a bit rich, you can speak for yourself, but not for others. You along with many other posters give as good as you get, and to say "getting obnoxiously insulting whenever..." is being somewhat sanctimonious. I suggest on seeing, Posted by Paul1405, you simply don't read it. your own political bias is quite evident, and like all of us, you are entitled to hold biased opinions.
You posted this, without any qualification, about migrants living in the Sydney suburb of Auburn;

"Not possibly some out of character development perhaps, per ill-gotten gains from new 'enterprise', like drug dealing or people smuggling, I wonder? Maybe I am of little faith? Or, perhaps inappropriately reluctant to give credit where due?"

Yet, I'm sure you would not post the same inference about people of European decent living on the other side of town, in even more palatial mansions in Vaucluse. I am not so naive to believe every brick in every house in Auburn has been obtained by purely legal means, just a I don't believe it about every house in Vaucluse. I seen your post as a rather feeble, but classic attempt at generalisation and stigmatisation of people. I admit immigration causes problems, problem which need to be addressed. It is also naive to think that Australia is not somewhat constrained by some obligations and other considerations, largely beyond our control, when it come to formulating immigration policy. Our immigration policy has to take into account many and varied factors, the Abbott government realises this, as have previous responsible governments. Australia cannot simply act unilaterally on immigration, no matter how much some poeple would like us to.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 4 April 2014 7:40:55 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
Paul,

Australia's population growth rate is the highest or nearly the highest in the developed world. Why are these pressures you allude to acting on us and not on the rest of the rich world? The latest figures that the World Bank has up on population growth rates are for 2012. At that time, our population growth rate was 1.6% (now 1.8%). With the 2012 figures (Australia at 1.6%), Austria's rate was a third of ours, Canada's 69% of ours, the Czech Republic's an eighth of ours, Denmark's a quarter of ours, Sweden's 44% of ours, the US 43% of ours, and the UK half of ours. Japan and Germany are actually declining in population. According to the ABS, 60% of our population growth is from immigration. About a third of the natural increase is from births to migrant mothers. Our own fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976, so natural increase by the native born population is a relatively small and declining factor.

If the world community is leaning on us to take more people, why isn't it leaning on Japan or Germany? The truth is that this enormously high population growth is being driven by our own business class, which (coincidentally) donates heavily to the major political parties. While most of the population gets no economic benefit or is even worse off, the folk at the top get bigger domestic markets, rentier profits from ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant workforce that they don't even have to train. High population growth is a wonderful mechanism for siphoning a nation's wealth up to the top. These people don't care about damage to our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, or quality of life. They are insulated by their wealth from most of the problems they are causing, and many of them probably regard themselves as citizens of the world, with no particular affection for the Australian environment or people.

I totally reject the idea that our government can't do anything about mass migration, so we should simply lie back and enjoy it.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 4 April 2014 8:41:59 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
Divergence

"I totally reject the idea that our government can't do anything about mass migration, so we should simply lie back and enjoy it." So do I, you will not find anywhere here or elsewhere, that I am advocating an open door policy for Australia on immigration. On the other hand I am equally not supporting a completely closed door policy either. From my point of view our migration policy has to be both balanced and sustainable. Given competing interests, you mentioned "our own business class" and they are one of those I would see as having an interest in the subject, trading partners like China would also take an interest in our migration policy, and humanitarian obligations, such as family reunion and our refugee program are other interests, and there are others as well. Our major source country for new settlers remains New Zealand, followed by India, China and the UK. In some quarters there is a popular misconception that "millions are pouring in" from Islamic countries, not true with the Middle East accounting for less than 6% of our total intake, which has been pegged at around 150 to 160k since 2007 with a net intake of between 60 and 70k for all those years.
con't
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 4 April 2014 10:07:32 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
con't
Based on the information at hand I fail to see how Australia's immigration policy is unreasonable, unless you want to take the attitude any immigration, is bad immigration. Divergence, you describe Australia's population growth as being "enormously high" I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the line you hold, so be it. I did say earlier, migrants are not without their problems, some do bring "baggage", some more that others, but I don't think those problems are sufficient to justify the total rejection of any one people or group of people. I much prefer we work in a positive fashion to accommodate immigrants, and those with problems, that we help work through those problems, if all else fails after due process of law, then yes there is the door, and I would not be adverse to showing it to some individuals, if and when it became necessary! That is my last resort, but not my first resort.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 4 April 2014 10:08:14 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
Paul,

The 1.8% population growth rate that we have, nearly 75% due directly or indirectly to immigration, will double our population in 38 years and 6 months, and it will keep doubling it at this rate indefinitely. This means 139 million people by 2114 and 842 million people by 2214, right up there with India and China. 1.8% is much higher than the global average of 1.14%, so we are growing faster than most of the Third World as well as the other rich countries. If this isn't enormously high, what would be?
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 4 April 2014 10:37:05 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
Divergence,

Our population growth is coming off a relatively low base of 23M where as countries like China and India although lower, percentage wise, are already at exceeding high levels of population. Raw percentages on there own do not draw a true picture, and it is a stretch to extrapolate 100 and 200 years into the future, WWIII wiped out 37 billion alone, lol. Population growth is not locked into any set figure, or pattern,given the parameters it is forced into, it is adjustable to a degree. Countries with zero or negative growth also encounter problems, not the least, an aging population, I think you would be familiar with what that entails. It should be of great concern to the world the pressures on the plant through population growth.
If you were the government for a day, what would you do on this issue?
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 4 April 2014 11:05:06 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
Paul,
This thread has changed direction several times and now has gone onto immigration policy.

Do you believe that accepting some alien practices is the price we pay for non selective immigration and multicultural policies? Just what should we accept and what to reject? In other words should we not allow persons of some groups that have demonstrated to us that they will not/cannot integrate even after 3 or more generations.

It is apparent that some groups hold their original culture well above that of our laws and social standards. I do not believe we can tolerate this and we should not be expected to spend our resources to counter alien cultural practices and protect our citizens.

For example, following the recent arrest of a person for underage sex and marriage offences, it was disclosed by the Immigrant Women's Health Service that hundreds of girls have been sent overseas for underage marriage. This was confirmed by a body set up to give young people legal advice. This is not acceptable and the only way is to stop immigration of those groups that condone this. Why should we continue to spend millions on education about FGM when continued influx of persons refreshes the alien ingrained practice.

Just where do you think we should draw the line? Are you happy with turning a blind eye to some alien activities?
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 4 April 2014 11:14:20 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
Paul,

Every country will have to get used to a stable age structure (unless it collapses), with the generations of approximately equal sizes up to extreme old age, which means more old people. Trying to keep young by immigration is a Ponzi scheme, because you just end up with even more old people later on. Children are actually a lot more dependent than old people, and you get a smaller percentage of them with a stable age structure. Germany and a number of other European countries have had decent economic growth rates and are on the UN's very high human development list despite having ageing populations. There is only a real problem when the fertility rate goes below 1.5.

If it were up to me, I would move towards stabilising the population now, as was recommended by the Australian Academy of Science in 1994. The business class would be told that the party is over and that immigration would be reduced progressively year by year down to zero net, which would currently mean about 80 thousand immigrants a year. I would withdraw from the Refugee Convention, but still take the same number of refugees from offshore, giving preference to political refugees who worked for reform in their own countries, not to the losers when two overly fecund ethnic groups duke it out over an inadequate pile of resources. I would end the open borders agreement with New Zealand, unless they want to go for political union, where we would have some say on their immigration policy. Currently, they are offshoring a lot of their unemployment problem and providing a stepping stone for migrants who want to move on to Australia.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 4 April 2014 11:33:41 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
Divergence,

Any chance of persuading you to run for parliament?

I mean if Clive Palmer can speak gooblegook and still garner 5% of the vote.
And if the Greens can speak double-gooblegook and still garner 4%.
Someone with your wit and wisdom should win in a landslide.
Posted by SPQR, Friday, 4 April 2014 1:39:35 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
Paul1405 "there is a lot of positive work being done for both our newest of arrivals, and also for the oldest people who's ancestors inhabited the continent."

And there the only ones that matter, right?
Forget the 200 years of European immigrants in the middle, from which 92% of the population descend.

"I have news for you, it ain't going to happen."

Yes, and the King of France shall rule unquestioned.
All Christians will honor the Pope's authority.
Russia will never be Communist.
Ireland will always be part of the United Kingdom.
The Negro slaves will never be freed.
And women will never get the vote.

Anything can "happen".
We *choose* what the future is.
If non-European immigration stopped now, in a few generations there'd be almost no evidence it ever happened.

Only about 5.5% are not of European or Aboriginal descent.

With no further immigration, that figure would fall to about 2%, as childless people grow old and die (leaving no trace they were ever here) and many more leave the country (about a quarter of all "permanent" immigrants leave).

Do you think 2% non-Euro/Aboriginal is going to redefine who we are as a people, culture, nation?
Blink and you'll miss it.

"Our population growth is coming off a relatively low base of 23M"

And why is that?
Because we've little room to grow in the first place.
Most of this land is desert.
North Africa has low population for the same reason.

Saltpetre "entrepreneurial cashed-up 'new blood' (immigrant(s)) from abroad."

But how many of them are? Very few.

So the few hundred who are hardly makes up for the millions who contribute nothing but pollution, crowds and stress-reactions in our amygdala.

And there are no cashed-up White people?
I'd hazard a guess there's far more of them than rich Third Worlders, and they'd make no significant change to our social reality.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 4 April 2014 2:15:16 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
Meanwhile in Sydney:

"IN yet another western Sydney shooting, the president of controversial anti-Islamic group ‘Australian Defence League’ became the victim of a targeted attack on his home last night"

from today's AUSTRALIAN.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 April 2014 7:31:07 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
Divergence,
I don't agree with your view on an aging population, "Children are actually a lot more dependent than old people" The ABS predicts that the median age of Australia’s population will increase from 36.8 years in 2007, to 45.2 years in 2056, and the issue of an aging population is becoming increasingly significant. With a rapidly declining birth rate, combined with Australians, on average living longer, the population can do nothing but age. The demand for aged services must increase, whilst the number of people in the work force supporting each aged person declines. There were about 5 workers in 2002 for each Australian over 65. the projection is for that figure to drop to around 2.5 in 2042. Unless more older people remain in the workforce longer, and there is indication that is happening, but then again that is a double edged sward in poor economic times, with a rise in unemployment amongst younger people.
Migration can assist in alleviating problems of an aging population, with a focus on migrants who are predominantly of workforce age, with skills. Such migrants assist in keeping up workforce growth and raise general skill levels and productivity. There has been much grumbling from New Zealand about the loss of skilled workers to Australia. John Key was miffed that NZ was paying for skills training and then seeing many of those skilled Kiwi's heading to Oz.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 4 April 2014 9:12:15 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
Paul, I'm afraid you are getting into contradictory territory with some of your fine theorizing:

>Unless more older people remain in the workforce longer, and there is indication that is happening, but then again that is a double edged sward (sword) in poor economic times, with a rise in unemployment amongst younger people.<

BUT THEN THIS:
>Migration can assist in alleviating problems of an aging population, with a focus on migrants who are predominantly of workforce age, with skills. Such migrants assist in keeping up workforce growth and raise general skill levels and productivity.<

The problem with this argument/proposition, Paul, is that there are TOO FEW JOBS for EITHER the 'older people' OR the 'younger people' (let alone for both); but MIGRATION can somehow correct this deficiency? By, magically stimulating workforce growth AND raising skill levels and productivity?

So, with Ford, Holden and Toyota shutting down in Oz, Qantas letting 5,000 go, Boeing cutting 300, SPC Ardmona xxy, BHP scaling back on iron ore and shelving Olympic Dam, Aussies drinking less wine and smoking less (with loss of excise AND some job reductions), AND fewer overseas students, fewer tourists, and fewer Aussies spending-up or taking holidays (because we ARE in a downturn),..

Where are all these more highly-skilled and productive JOBS going to come from - for the olds, the youngs and the immigrants (and their families)?
Infrastructure Australia? NDIS? NBN? Gonski? 2nd Sydney Airport? High-speed rail, urban link roads, dams on the Ord, Defence Forces/National Service, Tassie forestry, nuclear waste disposal, CSIRO, Satellite Solar Concentrators supporting massive inland Greenhouse Food Production (in the arid zones)..?
Or, the channeling of northern rivers to create a massive southern inland freshwater sea for irrigation and/or Oil-Producing Algae Farming? (or boating?)

Great! But, where's the money? (Ah! Saudi Sheiks!)
No cashed-up Asians? Chinese interests looking to invest $A44 Billion in 'property'? A furphy?

But, no-one rushing to invest in new industry in Oz.
Wages and conditions, OH&S and 'red tape' all too unattractive?
(Or, do we just not have the workers?)(NZ to the rescue? Or, Bangladesh?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 5 April 2014 1:21:03 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
Salty, you paint a very pessimistic view of Australia's economic outlook. Highlighting job losses, lack of investment, lack of infrastructure etc, certainly in the short term the outlook doesn't look all that rosy. I to have a degree of pessimism about the economic outlook, particularly as it relates to this incompetent government in Canberra.
The well respected economist, Dr Ken Henry, has expressed a view which very much still points us in the direction of Asia as the on going source of our economic well-being. He does point to the need for Australia to reposition itself as a supplier to the world markets, specifically pointing to the growing middle class in Asia and the resulting increase in demand from that section. Henry is critical of the federal government on the score of understanding economic change and as how it applies to Australia. I think Henry offers an informative and balanced view on the economy, and should be taken seriously by the Abbott government on a number of economic matters.

http://theconversation.com/the-view-on-australias-economic-future-with-dr-ken-henry-15303

Dr Henry has also had a bit to say about the incompetent Treasurer Hockey and tax reform.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gst-will-have-to-rise-warns-ken-henry-20140312-34n0a.html

p/s Immigration policy must be in there somewhere.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 5 April 2014 7:19:20 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
SPQR,

I am flattered, but there is nothing special about me. You will find a lot of the same policies on the websites of the Sustainable Population Party (formerly the Stable Population Party) and the Stop Population Growth Now party in South Australia. The problem is that the growthists control the mass media and the education system. Paul is clearly mystified on the ageing issue and has no understanding of our real carrying capacity, for example.

Paul,

The Productivity Commission has said that immigration has very little effect on population ageing. This is from p. 10 of their 2010/2011 annual report:

"Immigrants, being typically younger on arrival than the existing population, could alleviate the ageing pressures in the short run (PC 2005b). However, several studies show these reductions are small for most plausible immigration levels. For example,an increase in annual net migration from 150 000 to 300 000 would lower the proportion of those aged 65 or over by less than 3 percentage points by 2044-45
(PC 2005). More importantly, any effect would be short lived. This is because immigrants themselves age, and progressively higher levels of migration would be needed to sustain the current age structure into the future. For example, it has been estimated that, to maintain the age structure of 2003-04 in 2044-45,annual migration during that period would need to be above 3 per cent of Australia’s population, leading to a population of over 100 million by the middle of this century."

Surely you can recognize that this is a Ponzi scheme. Why are European countries that already have the age structure you fear still ranking so high on economic performance and human development?

(cont'd)
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 5 April 2014 1:17:41 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
(cont'd)

Saltpetre is right about the jobs. This is what Tim Colebatch, the Economics Editor of the Melbourne Age has to say:

"People born overseas have taken almost three-quarters of the net growth in full-time jobs in Australia in the past two years, even though they make up just 31 per cent of the adult population. Analysis of the Bureau of Statistics jobs data reveals that, comparing the six months to April with the same months two years earlier, Australia gained just 131,000 more full-time jobs - one new full-time job for every five new people.
"But in net terms, people born overseas gained 97,000 more full-time jobs, while Australian-born people gained only 34,000. The economy created only one new full-time job for every 10 more Australian-born people aged 15 and over. The figures raise doubts about employers' claims that they must hire workers from overseas because Australians are not available to do the jobs.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/skilled-newcomers-flood-fulltime-jobs-market-20130614-2o9vm.html#ixzz2YLJos5JE

Once we have more than one new job for every 5 new people, we can worry about where the extra workers will come from.

Finally, Australia is what demographers call a "big little country", lots of territory, but most of it uninhabitable, as SPQR or Shockadelic pointed out. These soil and rainfall maps are from Dr. Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

For comparison see this rainfall map of the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_precipitation_in_the_lower_48_states_of_the_USA.png

World inherent soil quality map from the US Dept. of Agriculture

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054011
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 5 April 2014 1:39:17 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
Divergence,

I don't think I'm "getting into contradictory territory" with what I've posted on this issue. I'll try to add some clarity. On aging population, the evidence is there that the number of older Australians as a proportion is on the increase. Those aged 65 plus is 3.3m (15%) up from 8% in 1970. I did say as an off set (it is a small one) the number working beyond 65 is also on the increase. The number of working Australian's supporting each non working aged person is diminishing, that is not in dispute. To this there is an expectation from the community that our elderly will enjoy a "reasonable" standard of living. That can be achieved in two ways, one, the non working older Australian can provide for their retirement from their own resources whilst working (superannuation, both compulsory and voluntary), or the taxpayer can provide directly, pensions, housing, heath services, transport etc.
I must clarify where I see immigration in this, in no way will it alone have a major impact on the aging population, it's not a panacea, far from it. You said
"Paul, is that there are TOO FEW JOBS for EITHER the 'older people' OR the 'younger people' (let alone for both); but MIGRATION can somehow correct this deficiency? By, magically stimulating workforce growth AND raising skill levels and productivity?" I don't disagree, certainly in the short term, although skill migration is not a complete negative it does have some benefit, but its not magic. There is ample evidence that business has completely abused the 457 visa scheme and it should be stopped.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22377677/cfmeu-alleges-457-visa-workers-exploited-at-rineharts-roy-hill/

Immigration is far more complex than just the skills component, there are many other considerations that come into play when formulating such policy.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 6 April 2014 8:54:16 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
When there are more job vacancies than people to fill them then we need inwards migration, when there aren't, we don't.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 6 April 2014 9:37:51 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
Sustainable Population Party Divergence, I don't have a problem with the SPP and it policies. Unfortunate like so many one issue parties it is difficult to aim above a 2% plateau with voters. The other concern I have is where micro parties are no more than a front to garner votes for an unintended cause, through manipulation of the system.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 7 April 2014 8:51:26 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 44
  7. 45
  8. 46
  9. All

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