"The Human Rights Commission has accepted a racial discrimination complaint lodged by crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm.

The Liberal Democrat lodged the complaint over an article by veteran Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny that blasted him over his wish to see section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act abolished.

The article, published last month, described him as an "angry white male".


link

Is it racist for a white person to call another white person white?

Raven wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 12:50pm:

Is it racist for a white person to call another white person white?

It was the context. He was stereotyped on the basis of his race. If a white person called a black person an "angry black male" in the media it would be front page news and straight before the courts.

The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see.

A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D

Belgarion wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 1:04pm:

The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D

What an interesting analysis. Belgarion.   OK, here's a question - without 18c, how does one get held responsible for the offence that one's comments can cause?   ::)

Belgarion wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 1:04pm:

The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D

Raven wonders what the Senator and his ilk want to say that requires the abolition of 18C in order to be able to say it.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequence. It just means the government can't stop you from saying it.

Defending a position by citing free speech is the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 12:50pm: Is it racist for a white person to call another white person white? It was the context. He was stereotyped on the basis of his race. If a white person called a black person an "angry black male" in the media it would be front page news and straight before the courts.

So what you're saying is that all white people are stereotyped as angry know-alls?

Let's  use aboriginal over-representation in the prison system. The popular explanation is the difficulty aboriginals experience living in a racist, oppressive colony of white mother England. That'll get you a pat on the back.  The unofficial reason goes back to aboriginal family dysfunction leading to not attending/dropping out of school, welfare reliance, drugs/alcohol and finally the easy option of crime. That'll potentially get you charged under18c. Just ask Bill Leak.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 1:42pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:04pm: The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D What an interesting analysis. Belgarion.   OK, here's a question - without 18c, how does one get held responsible for the offence that one's comments can cause?   ::)

If a comment is libelous or defaming there are laws already in place to deal with it, however there is no 'right' not to be offended. 

Raven wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 12:36am:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:04pm: The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D Raven wonders what the Senator and his ilk want to say that requires the abolition of 18C in order to be able to say it. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequence. It just means the government can't stop you from saying it. Defending a position by citing free speech is the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express it.

You misunderstand, a position itself is not being defended by citing free speech. The right to express it is the issue. 

Raven wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 12:50pm:

Is it racist for a white person to call another white person white?

Yes - but only if that honky has a complex about being white, and therefore takes offence at being called white.

For reasons as yet unknown, blacks being called 'blacks' by white guys is taken as an insult, whereas whites being called 'whites' by blacks, is not taken as an insult.

Go figure.

Aborigines being called 'Abos' for short is taken as an insult.

Herb, how offended are you at being called a 'pom'? Other terms like this are 'yankee', 'kiwi' and 'limey'. Not a lot of offence there. 'Abo' (short for Aboriginal) and 'Lezzo' (short for lesbian)-"Look out! Here comes a Vesuvius of confected outrage!!!

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 1:43pm:

Herb, how offended are you at being called a 'pom'? Other terms like this are 'yankee', 'kiwi' and 'limey'. Not a lot of offence there. 'Abo' (short for Aboriginal) and 'Lezzo' (short for lesbian)-"Look out! Here comes a Vesuvius of confected outrage!!!

From day one in 1961 it never occurred to me to take offence at this, and especially as a lot of the migrants at that time had to wear words like 'wog' and dago' and 'reffoes' - something which I never called them, incidentally.

These words can be terms of insult or endearment, depending upon circumstance and context. I've often heard my ethnic workmates use the term 'wog' with each other as an irony.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 12:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Belgarion wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:04pm: The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D What an interesting analysis. Belgarion.   OK, here's a question - without 18c, how does one get held responsible for the offence that one's comments can cause?   ::) If a comment is libelous or defaming there are laws already in place to deal with it, however there is no 'right' not to be offended.

Yet you appear to be "offended" continually by criticism of the PHONies and their policies, Belgarion...   ::)

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 12:48pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 12:36am: Belgarion wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:04pm: The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D Raven wonders what the Senator and his ilk want to say that requires the abolition of 18C in order to be able to say it. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequence. It just means the government can't stop you from saying it. Defending a position by citing free speech is the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express it. You misunderstand, a position itself is not being defended by citing free speech. The right to express it is the issue.

18C does not prevent you from expressing an opinion, Belgarion.   It is the offence suffered by the complainant and the subsequent court action that punishes you for making that statement.  Indeed, there are provisions under 18C which protect free speech:


Quote:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin              (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. Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.              (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:                      (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or                      (b)  is done in a public place; or                      (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.              (3)  In this section: "public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 1:21pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 12:50pm: Is it racist for a white person to call another white person white? Yes - but only if that honky has a complex about being white, and therefore takes offence at being called white. For reasons as yet unknown, blacks being called 'blacks' by white guys is taken as an insult, whereas whites being called 'whites' by blacks, is not taken as an insult. Go figure. Aborigines being called 'Abos' for short is taken as an insult.

Look at the history of the word to see how it has been used as an insult in the past, Herbie.  As much as you prefer to offend people through your use of language, it is still offensive to use that word.  I was raised to know that it was offensive and I am sure you learnt it was offensive after your arrival in Australia but you still use it to be what?  Gee, "offensive" comes to mind...    ::)

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 1:43pm:

Herb, how offended are you at being called a 'pom'? Other terms like this are 'yankee', 'kiwi' and 'limey'. Not a lot of offence there. 'Abo' (short for Aboriginal) and 'Lezzo' (short for lesbian)-"Look out! Here comes a Vesuvius of confected outrage!!!

"Confected" or realistic?   The words were used as insults, people remember they were used as insults, therefore they are insults.  QED.    ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 2:55pm:

Look at the history of the word to see how it has been used as an insult in the past, Herbie.  As much as you prefer to offend people through your use of language, it is still offensive to use that word.  I was raised to know that it was offensive and I am sure you learnt it was offensive after your arrival in Australia but you still use it to be what?  Gee, "offensive" comes to mind...    ::)

Being dyslexic I have trouble spelling aboriginees/ aboriganees / Abbarigenies / aborigenies / etc etc.

Aboriginal Australians = 21 letters

Abos = 4 letters

African Americans = 16 letters

Blacks = 6 letters

Person of Mediterranean appearance = 31 letters

A wog = 4 letters

etc etc   ::) :P

Nominee for the award for contributions to  confected outrage...(drumroll)...BWIAN!!! (no no no B R I A N!)

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 3:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 2:55pm: Look at the history of the word to see how it has been used as an insult in the past, Herbie.  As much as you prefer to offend people through your use of language, it is still offensive to use that word.  I was raised to know that it was offensive and I am sure you learnt it was offensive after your arrival in Australia but you still use it to be what?  Gee, "offensive" comes to mind...    ::) Being dyslexic I have trouble spelling aboriginees/ aboriganees / Abbarigenies / aborigenies / etc etc. Aboriginal Australians = 21 letters Abos = 4 letters African Americans = 16 letters Blacks = 6 letters Person of Mediterranean appearance = 31 letters A wog = 4 letters etc etc   ::) :P

Still being offensive.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 3:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 2:55pm: Look at the history of the word to see how it has been used as an insult in the past, Herbie.  As much as you prefer to offend people through your use of language, it is still offensive to use that word.  I was raised to know that it was offensive and I am sure you learnt it was offensive after your arrival in Australia but you still use it to be what?  Gee, "offensive" comes to mind...    ::) Being dyslexic I have trouble spelling aboriginees/ aboriganees / Abbarigenies / aborigenies / etc etc. Aboriginal Australians = 21 letters Abos = 4 letters African Americans = 16 letters Blacks = 6 letters Person of Mediterranean appearance = 31 letters A wog = 4 letters etc etc   ::) :P Still being offensive.   ::) ::)

Blacks is offensive?? How?

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 3:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 3:32pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 3:12pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 2:55pm: Look at the history of the word to see how it has been used as an insult in the past, Herbie.  As much as you prefer to offend people through your use of language, it is still offensive to use that word.  I was raised to know that it was offensive and I am sure you learnt it was offensive after your arrival in Australia but you still use it to be what?  Gee, "offensive" comes to mind...    ::) Being dyslexic I have trouble spelling aboriginees/ aboriganees / Abbarigenies / aborigenies / etc etc. Aboriginal Australians = 21 letters Abos = 4 letters African Americans = 16 letters Blacks = 6 letters Person of Mediterranean appearance = 31 letters A wog = 4 letters etc etc   ::) :P Still being offensive.   ::) ::) Blacks is offensive?? How?

Didn't claim it was.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 2:48pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 12:45pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:42pm: Belgarion wrote on Sep 22nd, 2016 at 1:04pm: The basis of this complaint is to expose how ridiculous this 18C law is. It has the 'progressives' in fits because if they deny his right to complain they are showing that it is indeed only a vehicle for enforcing discrimination against white people, and if it goes through the foolishness of the whole system is exposed for all to see. A lose/lose for the self loathing white activists and their fellow travellers.  ;D What an interesting analysis. Belgarion.   OK, here's a question - without 18c, how does one get held responsible for the offence that one's comments can cause?   ::) If a comment is libelous or defaming there are laws already in place to deal with it, however there is no 'right' not to be offended.  Yet you appear to be "offended" continually by criticism of the PHONies and their policies, Belgarion...   ::)

Have I ever called for the silencing of those opposed to Hanson, or anyone else I disagree with?  Whatever my opinion of a particular point of view, I do not demand it be silenced, unlike the self proclaimed defenders of all that is good and just.  ::) 

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 2:53pm:

18C does not prevent you from expressing an opinion, Belgarion.   It is the offence suffered by the complainant and the subsequent court action that punishes you for making that statement.  Indeed, there are provisions under 18C which protect free speech: Quote: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin              (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. Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.              (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:                      (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or                      (b)  is done in a public place; or                      (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.              (3)  In this section: "public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

It is the offence suffered by the complainant and the subsequent court action that punishes you for making that statement.

Free speech is OK as long as no one takes offence. Do you not see the contradiction there?

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 4:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 2:48pm: Yet you appear to be "offended" continually by criticism of the PHONies and their policies, Belgarion...   ::) Have I ever called for the silencing of those opposed to Hanson, or anyone else I disagree with?  Whatever my opinion of a particular point of view, I do not demand it be silenced, unlike the self proclaimed defenders of all that is good and just.  ::)

However, that was not the point I was making, now was it, Belgarion? 

Have you not been "offended" by attacks on Pauline Hanson and the PHONies?  YES/NO

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 4:09pm:

Free speech is OK as long as no one takes offence. Do you not see the contradiction there?

Are you allowed to shout, "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded cinema?  YES/NO

There have always been limits on "Freedom of Speech".  One only has to look at the video from the US "Black Lives Matter" protests to see the Police proving that...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 4:55pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 4:09pm: Free speech is OK as long as no one takes offence. Do you not see the contradiction there? Are you allowed to shout, "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded cinema?  YES/NO There have always been limits on "Freedom of Speech".  One only has to look at the video from the US "Black Lives Matter" protests to see the Police proving that...   ::)

People need to toughen up a bit. How many people on here have been called something in their lives?- everybody. Australia is turning into a country of pussies.

Some people just have a victim mentality and dollar signs in their eyes in the hope of compensation.

Black Orchid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Some people just have a victim mentality and dollar signs in their eyes in the hope of compensation.

Particularly minorities.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Still being offensive.   ::) ::)

Is 'Pom' an offensive term?

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 3:33pm:

Blacks is offensive?? How?

It's rude to notice they're blacks, and even more rude to voice this observation.

Polite people ignore this colourful elephant-in-the-room that black people feel is very shameful about themselves. 

Dear O dear O dear ....


"Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.


"Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city's population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city's population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city's population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald's research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.)

Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city's population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies".


dear O dear O dear ...


WHERE are the blacks marching on these figures? Not a sign of them anywhere.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 6:16pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 3:33pm: Blacks is offensive?? How? It's rude to notice they're blacks, and even more rude to voice this observation. Polite people ignore this colourful elephant-in-the-room that black people feel is very shameful about themselves.

What about whites?

Whites is a dirty word and they just don't count.  Sad world we live in.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Dear O dear O dear .... "Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city's population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city's population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city's population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald's research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.) Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city's population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies". dear O dear O dear ... WHERE are the blacks marching on these figures? Not a sign of them anywhere.

There will probably be over 20 blacks shot by blacks in Chicago this weekend without a word from Hillary or even Obama or the racist BLM group.
heyjackass.com

It's the same with our aborigines - "It's all whitey's fault" whatever is wrong in their lives, despite themselves being their own worst enemy.

"Invasion Day" whinging.

"Stolen Generations" whinging.

"Early settlers' killings" (to save their lives against starvation) whinging.

"Racial prejudice" whinging (despite a dozen different black ethnicities having arrived through immigration).

And then EVERYONE who isn't an aborigine but who is in daily contact with aborigines is some sort of Welfare Worker, or Police Liaison Officer, of charity worker, or Centrelink staffer, or prison officer, or children's agent from DOCs, or ... the list goes on and on.

It's NOT whiteys fault, you guys! The only people who can help you are you yourselves, and what this means is a total change in culture from Victimhood blame-shifting and a 'glass-half-empty' whinging ... to thinking in positive and productive terms like the score of immigrants who I worked with in factories when I got off the ship in 1961 down at the Sydney Cove terminal.

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 5:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 4:55pm: Belgarion wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 4:09pm: Free speech is OK as long as no one takes offence. Do you not see the contradiction there? Are you allowed to shout, "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded cinema?  YES/NO There have always been limits on "Freedom of Speech".  One only has to look at the video from the US "Black Lives Matter" protests to see the Police proving that...   ::) People need to toughen up a bit. How many people on here have been called something in their lives?- everybody. Australia is turning into a country of pussies.

You mean people are defending themselves against the insults you enjoy using so much?  Shame.   ::)

Black Orchid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Some people just have a victim mentality and dollar signs in their eyes in the hope of compensation.

Some may but some may also be offended by comments passed by ignorant pissants...   ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 3:32pm: Still being offensive.   ::) ::) Is 'Pom' an offensive term?

Is it, Herbie?  You tell me, afterall I've never been called one...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:05am:

Black Orchid wrote on Sep 23rd, 2016 at 5:43pm: Some people just have a victim mentality and dollar signs in their eyes in the hope of compensation. Some may but some may also be offended by comments passed by ignorant pissants...   ::)

The only ignorant pissant here is you bwian  ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 8:14pm:

It's the same with our aborigines - "It's all whitey's fault" whatever is wrong in their lives, despite themselves being their own worst enemy. "Invasion Day" whinging. "Stolen Generations" whinging. "Early settlers' killings" (to save their lives against starvation) whinging. "Racial prejudice" whinging (despite a dozen different black ethnicities having arrived through immigration). And then EVERYONE who isn't an aborigine but who is in daily contact with aborigines is some sort of Welfare Worker, or Police Liaison Officer, of charity worker, or Centrelink staffer, or prison officer, or children's agent from DOCs, or ... the list goes on and on. It's NOT whiteys fault, you guys! The only people who can help you are you yourselves, and what this means is a total change in culture from Victimhood blame-shifting and a 'glass-half-empty' whinging ... to thinking in positive and productive terms like the score of immigrants who I worked with in factories when I got off the ship in 1961 down at the Sydney Cove terminal.

However insulting them because of the colour of their skin or their ancestry is the white fella's fault, now isn't it, Herbie?   ::)

Black Orchid wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Some people just have a victim mentality and dollar signs in their eyes in the hope of compensation.

The penalty under defamation is more than the penalty under 18c

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:08am:

However insulting them because of the colour of their skin ...

Nobody is insulting them because of the colour of their skin. That's the first I've heard of it.

The attitude of disapproval towards a section of the aboriginal community is in response to their behaviour and their Cargo Cult mentality in believing that whitey owes them a cradle-to-grave living.i

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 6:59am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:08am: However insulting them because of the colour of their skin ... Nobody is insulting them because of the colour of their skin. That's the first I've heard of it.

So, you call non-Indigenous Australians, "Abo" because they are white, Herbie?  Grow up.  This is one of your most pathetic excuses I've read.  It's not even amusing.   You know what you did and you know why you do it.

What is really funny is that you, a first generation migrant non-Citizen tells all other Australians how they should act towards their fellow citizens.    ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 25th, 2016 at 6:59am: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:08am: However insulting them because of the colour of their skin ... Nobody is insulting them because of the colour of their skin. That's the first I've heard of it. So, you call non-Indigenous Australians, "Abo" because they are white, Herbie?

As a demographic, the Abos are astronomically over-represented in our jails and at Centrelink.


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

What is really funny is that you, a first generation migrant non-Citizen tells all other Australians how they should act towards their fellow citizens.    ::) ::)

Our entire political class takes their cue from what the British politicians are doing, and what a UN stacked with foreigners believe our National policies should be on any given subject.

Except for the very rare occasion, our successive governments of both the major parties don't sneeze unless the UN, the USA, and more lately, China, tells them it's okay to do so.

It's a Grand Delusion that we are an independent nation making up its own rules. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25th, 2016 at 1:55pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 25th, 2016 at 6:59am: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:08am: However insulting them because of the colour of their skin ... Nobody is insulting them because of the colour of their skin. That's the first I've heard of it. So, you call non-Indigenous Australians, "Abo" because they are white, Herbie? As a demographic, the Abos are astronomically over-represented in our jails and at Centrelink.

Another non-answer which is doubly offensive.  Well done, Herbie.  More trolling.   ::)


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25th, 2016 at 1:55pm: What is really funny is that you, a first generation migrant non-Citizen tells all other Australians how they should act towards their fellow citizens.    ::) ::) Our entire political class takes their cue from what the British politicians are doing, and what a UN stacked with foreigners believe our National policies should be on any given subject. Except for the very rare occasion, our successive governments of both the major parties don't sneeze unless the UN, the USA, and more lately, China, tells them it's okay to do so. It's a Grand Delusion that we are an independent nation making up its own rules.

Yet another trolling non-answer.  What right do you have to tell Australian citizens to order their lives according to how you feel they should?  Oh, that's right, you're a first generation, non-Citizen, immigrant, aren't you, Herbie?    ::)

We know just who the 'troller' really is, don't we Brian?

49% don't want any more Muslims settling in Australia. How do you feel about your generational fellow-Australians, Brian? Hmmmm ... ?  ;D

Still failed to answer the question, Herbie. How unsurprising from a Master Troll...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 26^th, 2016 at 12:25am:

Still failed to answer the question, Herbie. How unsurprising from a Master Troll...   ::)

What do you think of your fellow-Australians now that it appears that in your own opinion at least 49% of them are ...

1) bigots
2) Islamophobes
3) xenophobes
4) Fascists
5) racists

....   Hmmmmm .... ?

49%

Take your time, Brian. I know this is not a time of celebration for you.

49%

Half the people you see around you in the streets today are 1) to 5) people.

Let's hear a comment from you about this.

49%

Don't be shy - We're all friends here ...  8-)

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, Brian.  8-)

Still failed to answer the question, Herbie. How unsurprising from a Master Troll...   ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 26^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

What do you think of your fellow-Australians now that it appears that in your own opinion at least 49% of them are ...

surely you mean 49% of the miserly 1000 that were polled?

You don't actually think that is representative of how the whole country feels, do you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Sep 26^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

surely you mean 49% of the miserly 1000 that were polled? You don't actually think that is representative of how the whole country feels, do you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

No I don't.

I would like to see at least two more independent polls before I'll start to believe these numbers.

I'm surprised that just this one survey has been getting so much publicity as though it's 100% correct.

***

"More than a third felt Muslims did not integrate into Australian society as their main reason for supporting a ban, with some citing concerns about terrorism and lack of uptake of Australian values, the poll showed".

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 26^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 26th, 2016 at 7:19pm: surely you mean 49% of the miserly 1000 that were polled? You don't actually think that is representative of how the whole country feels, do you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D No I don't. I would like to see at least two more independent polls before I'll start to believe these numbers. I'm surprised that just this one survey has been getting so much publicity as though it's 100% correct. *** "More than a third felt Muslims did not integrate into Australian society as their main reason for supporting a ban, with some citing concerns about terrorism and lack of uptake of Australian values, the poll showed".

A survey giving an all or nothing choice can be misleading.

Take asylum seekers. Nine polls between 2001 and 2010 asked respondents if they favoured or opposed boat turn backs.

The average was 67% in favour of boat turn backs.

But in 2010 one particular survey offered four policy options, ranging from eligibility for permanent settlement to turning back of boats.

In this context, a minority of just 27% supported turn backs.

Congratulations on digging up all those surveys

Well done on keeping everyone in the known universe informed and up to date on how to morally behave in society - and in a mature and grown up manner.

Well done on that front

Are there any surveys available where the respondents were all Indigenous Australians and the survey was carried out on the shores of Botany Bay in about the year 1788?

You know, at about the time when this continent was invaded by fascist boat people from Britain who intended to dispossess its original occupants from their land, steal their children, introduce small pox etc.

Gee, I forgot how the %$^& could such a survey be carried out, if this land was empty?

TERRA NULIUS remember?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUG0IMjfxCE



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBw14SVVQTI

Political correctness:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzHVv_U6L-k

Political correctness is the tool used by the elite to demonise people who do the right thing and want a just society.

They can also switch in an instant when it suits their little power games.

Dr Sircus did not know of this socio-political axiom when he formulated his Great Baking Soda cancer Cure.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 12:15pm:

Political correctness is the tool used by the elite to demonise people who do the right thing and want a just society.

So, persecution on the basis of "race"/skin colour/shape of a person's eye/shape of a person's nose/religion/sexuality/gender/etc. is what constitutes a "just society" in your opinion?

Remind me never to visit your country.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 12:15pm: Political correctness is the tool used by the elite to demonise people who do the right thing and want a just society. So, persecution on the basis of "race"/skin colour/shape of a person's eye/shape of a person's nose/religion/sexuality/gender/etc. is what constitutes a "just society" in your opinion? Remind me never to visit your country.   ::)

Show this persecution

rhino wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 2:07pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 12:15pm: Political correctness is the tool used by the elite to demonise people who do the right thing and want a just society. So, persecution on the basis of "race"/skin colour/shape of a person's eye/shape of a person's nose/religion/sexuality/gender/etc. is what constitutes a "just society" in your opinion? Remind me never to visit your country.   ::) Show this persecution

It has and continues to this day.  Your continued persecution of Muslims is a fair case in point.   ::)

You identify opposition and rejection as persecution.

That's just you being stupid on purpose.

Frank wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 9:30pm:

You identify opposition and rejection as persecution.

Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::)


Quote:

That's just you being stupid on purpose.

Coming from you?  Grow up.   Your hatred of all Muslims is palpable.  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 11:57pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::)

Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject.



Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24?

You are thicker and stupider than we thought. (And that's something you could crow about, our little over-archiever).

Frank wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 9:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 11:57pm: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::) Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject. Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24?

I think you worked that out from the clue I've provided, Frank.  "Volume".  When someone decides to go on the warpath against Muslims and continually post criticism and hatred based on ignorance and bigotry, I reckon they've turned the volume up to 11.


Quote:

You are thicker and stupider than we thought. (And that's something you could crow about, our little over-archiever).

Jealousy is a curse, Frank.  Your continual resorting to ad hominem debate indicates what about your ability to debate any topic?  Mmm?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2016 at 10:46pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:11pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 11:57pm: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::) Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject. Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24? I think you worked that out from the clue I've provided, Frank.  "Volume".  When someone decides to go on the warpath against Muslims and continually post criticism and hatred based on ignorance and bigotry, I reckon they've turned the volume up to 11.

Really??

So if I were to be critical of, say, Trump on every thread he is mentioned in I would be persecuting Trump. Especially since I have never met him.

Your brain is truly addled.

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 10:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:46pm: Frank wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:11pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 11:57pm: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::) Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject. Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24? I think you worked that out from the clue I've provided, Frank.  "Volume".  When someone decides to go on the warpath against Muslims and continually post criticism and hatred based on ignorance and bigotry, I reckon they've turned the volume up to 11. Really?? So if I were to be critical of, say, Trump on every thread he is mentioned in I would be persecuting Trump. Especially since I have never met him. Your brain is truly addled.

http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332811-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2016 at 10:38am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:46pm: Frank wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:11pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 11:57pm: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::) Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject. Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24? I think you worked that out from the clue I've provided, Frank.  "Volume".  When someone decides to go on the warpath against Muslims and continually post criticism and hatred based on ignorance and bigotry, I reckon they've turned the volume up to 11. Really?? So if I were to be critical of, say, Trump on every thread he is mentioned in I would be persecuting Trump. Especially since I have never met him. Your brain is truly addled. http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332811-yawn_20smiley.jpg

You stupid man. being critical of Trump is not persecution, being critical of Islam is persecution of Muslim.

You are an idiot and you have been shown up as an idiot once again. That's why you are gesturing for a facial as you always do when you have been had.

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2016 at 8:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 4th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2016 at 10:38am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 10:46pm: Frank wrote on Oct 3rd, 2016 at 9:11pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 11:57pm: Frank wrote on Oct 1st, 2016 at 9:30pm: You identify opposition and rejection as persecution. Considering the volume of "opposition and rejection" it amounts to persecution.  Ask a Muslim if they feel persecuted or merely "opposed and rejected"...   ::) Tell us what differentiates persecution from opposition and rejection so we will know not to persecute but only oppose and reject. Is opposing and rejecting every minute of the day makes us persecutors? Do we have to stop opposing and rejecting 12 hours out of every 24? I think you worked that out from the clue I've provided, Frank.  "Volume".  When someone decides to go on the warpath against Muslims and continually post criticism and hatred based on ignorance and bigotry, I reckon they've turned the volume up to 11. Really?? So if I were to be critical of, say, Trump on every thread he is mentioned in I would be persecuting Trump. Especially since I have never met him. Your brain is truly addled. http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332811-yawn_20smiley.jpg You stupid man. being critical of Trump is not persecution, being critical of Islam is persecution of Muslim.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Frank.   8-)


Quote:

You are an idiot and you have been shown up as an idiot once again. That's why you are gesturing for a facial as you always do when you have been had.

Tsk, tsk, resorting to ad hominem again, Frank.    ::)

Bob's singing about Brian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cartoons/bleak-gallery/image-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

---

*SIGH* still with the ad hominem, Frank?  Tsk, tsk.  18c isn't aimed at me, its aimed the targets of your hatred and bigotry.  Your opposition to 18c is because you're afraid you'll be unable to rant and rave at them.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

*SIGH* still with the ad hominem, Frank?  Tsk, tsk.  18c isn't aimed at me, its aimed the targets of your hatred and bigotry.  Your opposition to 18c is because you're afraid you'll be unable to rant and rave at them.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

You can roll your eyes, you can tut-tut - but you are on he side of the fascists, Brian.  And you know it. You know you are on the side of the oppressing thought-fascists.


Mr Leak's opponents are not attempting to engage him in debate; they're attempting to close down the debate. And there's no point getting in a debate with someone whose only argument is "Shut up – or else."

In that sense, the Australian "human rights" regime and the Charlie Hebdo killers are merely different points on the same continuum: They're both in the shut-up business, and they shut you up pour encourager les autres. They know that, for every cartoonist they silence, a thousand more will never peep up in the first place.

So this isn't a debate about aboriginal policy or Islamic imperialism or anything else. It's a debate about whether we're free to debate. I take the view that the Australian state, like the Canadian state, should not be in the shut-up business. And, when they are, it's they who are the issue, not you. When it's a contest between a book or cartoon, on the one hand, and, on the other, a guy who says, "You can't say that!", it's the latter who's on trial. If you're on the side that's saying "Shut up!", you're on the wrong side.





And that's you, Brian, karnal, gweg, mothra, Greens and the rest of the progs. You are all in the shut-up business.

Frank wrote on Oct 18^th, 2016 at 10:24pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: *SIGH* still with the ad hominem, Frank?  Tsk, tsk.  18c isn't aimed at me, its aimed the targets of your hatred and bigotry.  Your opposition to 18c is because you're afraid you'll be unable to rant and rave at them.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) You can roll your eyes, you can tut-tut - but you are on he side of the fascists, Brian.  And you know it. You know you are on the side of the oppressing thought-fascists.

Really?  You can of course present evidence to support your claim?

No, I didn't think so.

In reality, you just don't like the idea that you have to argue an issue without resorting to insulting language.  What a shame that you have to act like an adult instead of a silly, squealing schoolboy.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18^th, 2016 at 11:07pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 18th, 2016 at 10:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: *SIGH* still with the ad hominem, Frank?  Tsk, tsk.  18c isn't aimed at me, its aimed the targets of your hatred and bigotry.  Your opposition to 18c is because you're afraid you'll be unable to rant and rave at them.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) You can roll your eyes, you can tut-tut - but you are on he side of the fascists, Brian.  And you know it. You know you are on the side of the oppressing thought-fascists. Really?  You can of course present evidence to support your claim? No, I didn't think so. In reality, you just don't like the idea that you have to argue an issue without resorting to insulting language.  What a shame that you have to act like an adult instead of a silly, squealing schoolboy.   ::)

you label everyone a racist bigot. That's your way of saying that there is no valid point other than yours.


Mr Leak's opponents are not attempting to engage him in debate; they're attempting to close down the debate. And there's no point getting in a debate with someone whose only argument is "Shut up – or else."

In that sense, the Australian "human rights" regime and the Charlie Hebdo killers are merely different points on the same continuum: They're both in the shut-up business, and they shut you up pour encourager les autres. They know that, for every cartoonist they silence, a thousand more will never peep up in the first place.

So this isn't a debate about aboriginal policy or Islamic imperialism or anything else. It's a debate about whether we're free to debate. I take the view that the Australian state, like the Canadian state, should not be in the shut-up business. And, when they are, it's they who are the issue, not you. When it's a contest between a book or cartoon, on the one hand, and, on the other, a guy who says, "You can't say that!", it's the latter who's on trial. If you're on the side that's saying "Shut up!", you're on the wrong side.



You are consistently on the wrong side Brian.

Frank wrote on Oct 19^th, 2016 at 10:02am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 18th, 2016 at 11:07pm: Frank wrote on Oct 18th, 2016 at 10:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: *SIGH* still with the ad hominem, Frank?  Tsk, tsk.  18c isn't aimed at me, its aimed the targets of your hatred and bigotry.  Your opposition to 18c is because you're afraid you'll be unable to rant and rave at them.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) You can roll your eyes, you can tut-tut - but you are on he side of the fascists, Brian.  And you know it. You know you are on the side of the oppressing thought-fascists. Really?  You can of course present evidence to support your claim? No, I didn't think so. In reality, you just don't like the idea that you have to argue an issue without resorting to insulting language.  What a shame that you have to act like an adult instead of a silly, squealing schoolboy.   ::) you label everyone a racist bigot. That's your way of saying that there is no valid point other than yours.

Not true.  I label those who have made a "racist" or "bigoted" comment, such a label.  Those that don't, I don't label as such.   You could of course try it, if you desired?    ::)


Quote:

Mr Leak's opponents are not attempting to engage him in debate; they're attempting to close down the debate. And there's no point getting in a debate with someone whose only argument is "Shut up – or else."

Oh, I'm all for honest, fair debate which is not based upon ignorance and lies, Frank.   Your problem and Mr. Leak's is that your argument is not based on ignorance and lies which have been pointed out to you many, many times.   ::)


Quote:

You are consistently on the wrong side Brian.

I disagree.   :P