skippy. wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 8:35am:


It looks as though it all comes down to how you phrase it. If Adelcrow had said Joe is a descendant of the Arabic Palestinians who are fighting for their freedom from a cruel Jewish colonisation - then his comments would have been perfectly acceptable.

As long as you are politically correct - then it doesn't matter what you say. Adelcrow will no doubt be more careful next time.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Needless to say, 'racism' can express a legitimate concern that need not be judged immoral and indefensible when viewed from certain perspectives.

When a different race of people come flooding into your neighbourhood via the immigration bandwagon, you can be quite certain they have a shared affinity with one another that is based solely on their racial background.

But this luxury is not allowed those of Anglo-Saxon-European background. It's evil and nasty for white-types to wish to be surrounded by those who resemble themselves racially. To express such a bias is deemed by the luvvies to be morally reprehensible and 'White Supremacist'. 

Mantra:

Quote:


From the rules:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Racism

Discussion of racism and race related political issues is encouraged. However, politically correct language should be used when making criticism of racial policies or groups. Racism will be judged in a similar way to pornography – that is, is the criticism necessary to get a point of view across, or is it a gratuitous attack on a racial group? Note that race is treated differently from religion, which is a matter of choice and is open to the same criticism as political ideology.

The prime minister’s election promise to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act could be in doubt following comments from the head of the government’s Indigenous Advisory Council, Warren Mundine, that the council was “not happy” about the removal of the section. This means the section may be modified rather than repealed.

Human rights organisations, ethnic groups, think tanks, government agencies and NGOs have all weighed in on the debate, and all seem to agree on two things; freedom of speech is important, but stopping racism and racially motivated attacks is also important.

A person can be considered to have breached the section if their actions are “reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.

The difference in views lies in how far these organisations believe the state should be able to restrict speech, and has led to some unexpected alliances.

Abbott’s election promise to repeal section 18C came after Andrew Bolt was found to have breached the act for a column he wrote about Indigenous Australians. The column implied light-skinned Indigenous people identified as such for personal gain. A federal court judge found the articles were not written in good faith and contained a series of factual errors.

Bolt and his supporters argue the section should be repealed because it interferes too greatly with speech that could be offensive or insulting.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/pm-may-soften-stance-on-racial-disc...

The point of the rule is to permit the expression of racist views and to encourage free debate about race, while filtering out the drunk bogans who are just here to insult people.

Are you lot for real? Since when has it been a crime to call someone an Arab? Are to refrain from calling people Asians too?

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 11:00am:

What is the difference between satire and sarcasm?

You're above no ones station buddy!