Should we name and shame online racists?

acotrel says:

06:34am | 18/01/12

I am prepared to own any comment that I make on a public forum. If a comment is negative or derogatory or downright poisonous, I usually avoid making it at all.  There is enough of that stuff in the world already without adding to it. However I often try to hold up the mirror.
Naming and shaming could be used the way labelling protestors as ‘communist’ was used in the fifties, when they made legitimate political comment. It is simply another way of bullying and stifling legitimate comment, even though racism is so deplorable.
Anyway the aborigines can look after themselves.  After all they do own Australia under international law!

Y2J says:

06:51am | 18/01/12

“You might be interested to know that I’ve actually criticised A Voice For Men in public for one of their naming-and-shaming exercises.”

This after repeatedly linking to that hate site when they launched what was largely an ad hominem attack and a bunch of strawman arguments directed at Tory’s criticism of MRE’s.

Oh Erick you’re my hero.

“Bad ideas are best battled by good ideas. “

And sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Nathan says:

07:05am | 18/01/12

Agreed on that,  one other thing i noticed in the article was the Tory’s comment below.

“It could, conceivably, encourage people to pose as others and post hateful things in order to discredit their enemies”
Who is to say that it is not happening already and the wrong people are being named and shamed. I really have a problem with people who play policeman when its not their place, you don’t know what their personal agenda is

Erick says:

07:19am | 18/01/12

@Nathan - ““It could, conceivably, encourage people to pose as others and post hateful things in order to discredit their enemies”

This isn’t just conceivable - it’s happened many times in real life. I have seen examples. I’ve also been a victim of posers pretending to be “Erick” in order to discredit me.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t use my real name. It’s exactly the sort of dirty trick that my stalkers love to use.

Aaron says:

07:27am | 18/01/12

I’m prepared to own my comments, however I’ve been called racist before for stupid little things, like describing a lecturer and saying “He’s about yay high, teaches x subject, he’s Indian.” and I got told I’m racist! It isn’t racism unless it’s derogatory…. Admittedly I may degrade some people, but not based on race.

I think that too many Australians are jumping on the political correctness bandwagon and not seeing what a load of crap it all is. That’s why naming and shaming shouldn’t happen, because a lot of what you’ll hear will be people who aren’t racist, but stating an observation.

Matthew says:

08:43am | 18/01/12

Correct, if someone thinks you’re racist by calling someone then it’s their own preconceived (racist) ideas that links Indian with racism.

Also, I’ll note that Tory mentioned racism, hate and snuff porn but nothing about sexist comments.  Why?  Because she wants to be able to freely make them like she did last week.

I’ll give her credit though, she happily posted them under her full name.  The fact that she didn’t get discredited for it proves that those posting hateful comments will likely get away with it anyway.

Chris L says:

09:04am | 18/01/12

I know what you mean Aaron. Even saying the word “aborigine” in public causes me to lower my voice because you know that it will capture people’s attention and they’ll be listening in on your conversation for something to be offended about.

The kind of hate Tory is talking about is different, but the accusation of “racism” has had its meaning diluted by quick draw reactionaries who spit it out as soon as they decide they don’t like you.

I’m not sure I like the removal of anonymity idea. While some people probably deserve to be outed, I do worry such methods will become applied to lesser and lesser indiscretions until, like accusations of racism and misogyny, the approach gets trundled out ad naseum and loses its impact.

It would be nice to that the more hateful proclaimations would simply be laughed into obscurity, but it seems there’s always some group of people willing to take the most ridiculous of ideas to their illogical conclusion. I don’t think there’s much of an answer for this other than education, and patiently putting forward the counter arguments whenever possible.

Peter says:

09:19am | 18/01/12

“My personal views have nothing to do with my friends or business, and I like to keep them separate.”

Well, isn’t that an interesting comment.  Let’s stop and think about that a bit.  You are effectively saying that you live a lie.  That your (infamous) views about women are something you keep secret from your friends and colleagues.  From people who actually (think) they know you.  People who probably like, even love, you.  But in reality, you are someone else.  Would they still feel the same about you if they knew the truth?  I think that you fear they will not.  So I ask you, if you think the people who care about you and do business with you will feel less of you if they knew your “personal views” about women, can it possibly be that your views are the problem - not them?  Think about it, mate.

Tim says:

09:30am | 18/01/12

Peter,
or is it more a case of “some people can’t handle the truth”?

But I’m sure that you always speak your mind in your public life and never curb your thoughts because they might offend. /sarcasm

Erick says:

09:39am | 18/01/12

@Peter - My personal views aren’t a secret - they’re just not something I lecture people about in situations that are not political discussions. Arguing online is fun, evangelism in personal situations is boring.

I am quite proud of the fact that I believe in equal rights for everyone. Only bigots are bothered by my views. The way some people attack me personally and tell lies about me only indicates that I wouldn’t want to interact with them personally in any case.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:01am | 18/01/12

Am I the only dumb galloot here who actually uses hits own name and is not afraid to ‘own’ my comments publicly?
acotrel you are in a public forum yet you use a pseudonym ... as do almost all others.
As for racism ... we are all racist it is the vehemence, the vicious intent, the hatred that matters. I had a student teacher at my school in Arnhem Land who proclaimed with pride that she was so not-racists that as soon as she saw an indigenous person on campus she just went straight up to them and talked to them. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that if she had been truly non-racist she would not have noticed that person’s difference.
I’ve been an Australian for 60 years and because of my name I’m still referred to as a sauer kraut,and inter alia immo, Nazi pants, redo and if I complain about anything at all or recommend change I’m invited to go back to where I come from. Won’t change my name but!
Racism is an integral part of Nationalism. [can’t really distinguish between racism and ethicism]
Look at how so many people rail against “boat people” xenophobic racism rooted in Christian British Nationalism; look at Gallipoli and Anzac Day - racist nationalism. The RSL forcing Howard to scrap the Japanese intention to build a ‘Peace Park’ in Canberra and Australia’s insistence on a war memorial at Long Tan - give me strength! [this is where we gave you gooks a good Aussie hiding eh but?]
Gooks in Vietnam were necessary racist propaganda- no one wants to kill and maim real people but Noggies and Gooks aren’t real people, are they? Just like Queenslanders calling people from elsewhere Mexicans (from south of the border) it might be mickey taking but its racist nationalism (statism) all the same.
Give us a break Tory about racism the appellation is out of control - I wanted to call a club the KKK (Kolan Kulture Klub) the joke fell flat and I was deemed a racist of the first degree.

Peter says:

10:05am | 18/01/12

Ok, i’ll have to take your word on that.  But all I can say is that if your political views regarding women are so inflammatory that you feel the need to keep them from the people closest to you, or with whom you do business, then that is a strong indication that something is wrong.

Kate says:

10:06am | 18/01/12

@Aaron and Chris L, that is exactly the problem with this proposal. People draw different boundaries around racism and some people’s definition is extraordinarily broad.

I would consider the comment that Tory has mentioned to be racist (and the poor spelling offends me). Simply describing someone as ‘Indian’ is definitely not racist.
If this was possible, though, I would report all of those people who claim that white people (especially white men) can never experience hardship. Now that is racist.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:16am | 18/01/12

I just wonder why the issue of sexism comes up at all. The article is about racism so where should sexism come in at all.
If you put your opinion out there using a pseudonym any attack against your pseudonym is not a personal attack its an attack against the pseudonym which you can actual disown in your real life.
Tory Shepherd with photo is no pseudonym so any attack is really and truly a personal attack.
Please folks give it some thought the abuse between each other using pseudonyms is fairly vitriolic and so be it, but take some care about whom you attack personally.
Name and shame racial vilification by all means but not non-PC comments. My children grew up with traditional Aborigines and my blue eyed pale skinned daughter claimed she was Aboriginal when she was little and as much as I believed in racial equality I didn’t want my children to marry an Aborigine - was that racist or realist? Buggered if I know how this will be received - but there it is! I know I’m racist but it that’s racial vilification then so be it. I believe in equality but equality is not congruence.

Bertrand says:

10:38am | 18/01/12

Erick said: “Arguing online is fun, evangelism in personal situations is boring.”

Very true. One of the greatest things about the internet is that those of us interested in political and social debate have found an outlet for it. Not everyone is interested in debating the ins and outs of gender relations in Australia, or the pluses and minuses of global capitalism, so why bore our friends with our opinions on such things?

And again, this is why naming and shaming isn’t a great idea. Who is to say whose ideas are repugnant and whose are wrong? I find lots of the stuff Erick says as appalling, and he no doubt finds many of my opinions offensive. The place for discrediting vile opinions is in online debate, not in shaming those we disagree with.

Peter says:

10:45am | 18/01/12

@Tim - yes, we all self-censor from time to time depending on the company we are with.  It’s called being polite.  Getting along with people.  Keeping the peace.  But I think you have to draw the line somewhere.  If you feel so strongly about something that is really very radical - and detrimental to others - and you spend a great deal of your personal time pushing that view on the internet, you have to wonder why you would stay in the closet about it?  Particularly if you think that your ideas are so noble that the only people who would have a problem with them are “bigots”.  The only conclusion I can draw is that such a person still has doubts.  That, at some level, they know they are going too far.  And the internet is their playground because they can continue to pretend to be oh-so-radical and provocative, yet still live a normal life at home.  Essentially, a cop out.

Peter says:

10:48am | 18/01/12

@Bertrand - surely you don’t think the internet invented political and social debate, do you?

Ohcomeon says:

10:55am | 18/01/12

“Aaron says: 08:27am | 18/01/12
“He’s about yay high, teaches x subject, he’s Indian.” and I got told I’m racist! “

Im not saying that it was a racist comment, but think for a moment about why you needed to define his ethnic background at all. You wouldnt have mentioned anything about ethnicity if he was white. Why is that?

It means that for some reason you need to specify his race which is completely unrelated to the comment you were making in general. So consciously or unconsciously you are drawing a line between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

I do it too, but also wonder why I feel the need.

MarkS says:

10:57am | 18/01/12

I wish to know what the loonies are thinking. Shutting them up does not make them cease to exist. You merely hide the problem from yourself. Then the real world smacks you with a rotten fish.

Bertrand says:

11:02am | 18/01/12

@Peter - um, no. What makes you think that?

But I also doubt that if I was sitting at home in my pyjamas (as I am now) without an internet connection that I would be having this discussion with you.

My pint was that internet has made accessing and participating in social and political debate a lot more accessible and common place.

Tim says:

11:48am | 18/01/12

Peter,
but people are not rational, hence we couldn’t have real discussions and debate like we do on the internet if everyone was outed.

Most of Erick’s posts say nothing except everyone should be treated completely equally. The fact that you see this as an extreme view shows how dangerous having different opinions can be in real life. 

Why should someone put things like their job or livliehood at risk because they have a different opinion to someone else?
The internet allows us to share our opinions anonymously without fear of sanction. It’s not a copout, it’s a free sharing of ideas.

What you suggest is that those who have different views should be outed from normal society because they don’t fit some sort of PC mould. Sorry but that sounds like a boring society to me.

Shooter says:

11:53am | 18/01/12

If you put your comments on the web for the public to read then be prepared to be named.

Chris L says:

11:54am | 18/01/12

@Ohcomeon - I have no doubt that if the majority of lecturers had been Indian the race would not have been pointed out, unless you were describing someone of a different race, such as European.

The reason we don’t point out when a person is white is because, at the moment and in most environments, white is the default assumption which only needs to be corrected if it’s wrong. Perhaps when the majority of the population of Australia is Asian you’ll find that will be the default assumption. It’s not racism, it’s shorthand.

Shooter says:

11:56am | 18/01/12

“;‘I’ve also been a victim of posers pretending to be “Erick” in order to discredit me.” Sad to tell you this but other people are called Erick too.

Robert says:

12:13pm | 18/01/12

Erick,
I believe that people should be allowed to have any opinions they like. They should have the right to express those opinions. BUT, Erick, what about the idea of standing up for your convictions? If a person has racist convictions they should be prepared to use their full & real name & accept whatever reaction is directed towards them as a result. The probelm with racists is that they hide behind pseudonyms etc.Why?
Why don’t simply be open about their opinions? Sticks & Stones?
In Australia it seems that only the broader ‘white’ population get accused of ‘racism’. Non-whires who complain of racism in whites & then go on to make racist remarks about ‘white’ justify their remarks on the grounds that they are ” Exercising their Right to the Freedom of Speech”.
It is not a one way street. Try visiting some non-white nations or countries where there are almost ghetto-style collections of non-whites (USA for one) You only have to walk down the street minding your own business & even in the company of some local non-white & the racists slurs are every bit as vicious.

SpagBol says:

12:40pm | 18/01/12

“Only bigots are bothered by my views.” No, you don’t get to decide that. That’s the most childish argument I’ve ever heard… well, I guess if you’d said only poo-heads are bothered, maybe that would be more childish, but honestly, this is ridiculous even from you, Erick.

Peter says:

12:52pm | 18/01/12

@Bertrand - most online discussions are actually the opposite of debate.  They are just anonymous rabid salvos.  The person knows they won’t be held accountable so all sorts of petulant crap gets flung back and forth.  People giving each other the online finger, essentially.

@Tim - don’t you see the contradiction?  If the view(s) are so noble as to be beyond reasonable reproach, why wouldn’t you want to stamp your name on them?  You say that all Erick stands for is people to be treated equally.  That’s very noble.  So then why does he want anonymity?  Answer: because he know’s they amount to more than that and there is a part of him that has doubts (which is why I believe there is hope for him, yet).  I would imagine that if you truly believe in the goodness of what you believe, you’d have no trouble letting people know that is what you stand for, both at a personal and public level. 

Look, i’ve met a lot of very passionate people in my life.  People who care about social issues.  Who actively pursue such issues.  Not ever have I met one who felt they needed to distance themselves at a personal level from those views.  Never.  I can only conclude that one would do that because they know that their views are not as noble as you make them out to be.

Chris L says:

01:07pm | 18/01/12

@Peter (if that is your real name!) you’ll find people with quite reasonable and fair opinions can be attacked for them. I’ll bet Martin Luther King would have lived longer if he’d remained anonymous (extreme example, but valid nonetheless).

I once pointed out some flaws in the story of Noah’s Ark and ended up with a rather foulmouthed stalker spreading nasty rumours about me. I’m rather pleased he/she was wasting their time.

Weary says:

01:18pm | 18/01/12

Yes Eric, and that’s because you’re weak and a fraud.  If you have opinions that you wouldn’t dare share with your mates it can only be because deep down you think you’re a hateful creep. 
And if you’re gonna leave a comment it’s probably best not to leave one that confirms how dishonest and fabricated your comments are.  That’s just foolish.

Seth Brundle says:

01:19pm | 18/01/12

I get the feeling that without Eric, The Punch’s readership would halve.  This probably explains why Tory baits him so much.

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:33pm | 18/01/12

Funny Weary. Most of the hate I see associated with Erick comes from those attacking him. Take your bile-filled, insight-less, anti-male-shame-tactic-cribbing, Wednesday afternoon flambe for instance. Tasty.

Tom says:

01:44pm | 18/01/12

Peter, if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying if you believe in what you are saying and it is “good” then there is no good reason for staying anonymous?

Plenty of good reasons, Peter. There are nutters out there. As Chris L said, Martin Luther King is testimony for that.

Tory’s own little dalliance with new age McCarthyism (McCarthyism the politically correct doctrine in those days) is reason enough to be cautious. Tory would willingly be a modern day Richard Nixon in what is turning out to be the most oppressive movements to hunt down enemies in the name of righteousness.

Bertrand says:

02:00pm | 18/01/12

@Peter - I don’t know if I agree with your argument that online debate is little more than name calling and bird flipping. We seem to be having a reasonably intelligent and civil discussion at the moment.

But you do have to choose the right forum. I participate on The Punch and a few other online discussion groups because they are the ones that deal with issues I’m interested in and have a relatively decent standard of debate - sure there are the name callers and bird flippers, but there are also lots of people with a diversity of opinions who will engage in a constructive debate. On the other hand, I don’t participate in Youtube threads because they fit your description of online ‘debate’ perfectly.

Bruce says:

02:10pm | 18/01/12

On the surface, yes name and shame. However, I see that the real issue is not what is said overtly, but what is done and said covertly. Naming and shaming may drive many into ‘cliques’, ‘tribes’ or ‘sub tribes’ pretending to present themselves as one thing, but being another.

Tim says:

02:38pm | 18/01/12

Peter,
as I said, because people aren’t rational.
Some people cannot accept that others have different opinions to themselves and will actively persecute them because of it.

You say that you’ve known people that are passionate in real life and none of them has distanced themselves from their beliefs.
How do you know they don’t? They could be far more militant on-line than they are in real life.

Try and have a conversation about maternity leave and the baby bonus when there is a pregnant woman present or removing negative gearing in front of a property investor.
Just because people act irrationally doesn’t mean your point isn’t right or good.

Darren says:

02:47pm | 18/01/12

How about these guys hiding behind Facebook to spread their hate speech:
Anti-Fascist Action Affinity : Brisbane, “Kill all the white men”

Ando says:

03:10pm | 18/01/12

Ohcomon,
“i do it too, but also wonder why I feel the need.” If you are describing someone you go to the most obvious description.  Chris L should be able to have described the Lecturer simply as Indian rather than listed common traits which are far less effective as identifiers. He was Indian after all.

Erick says:

03:39pm | 18/01/12

@Robert - “BUT, Erick, what about the idea of standing up for your convictions? If a person has racist convictions they should be prepared to use their full & real name & accept whatever reaction is directed towards them as a result.”

That’s a fine principle. So, why aren’t you using your full & real name?

Mark says:

04:10pm | 18/01/12

@ Dieter Moeckel

“I just wonder why the issue of sexism comes up at all.”

That’s because Erick can’t help himself, Dieter. He has a bigoted obsession and tries to troll every comment thread with his self-pity about playing a “victim” of “oppression”.

The hilarious part is that the only time he doesn’t do it is when that’s actually the topic of the article. We’ve had two articles recently about men’s rights and both times he’s completely wimped out. The first time he said he had to “go shopping”, and the second time he said he wasn’t “paid to comment” and had to “do some work”.  Funny how he never needs to go shopping or do any work any other time.

@ Shooter

“;‘I’ve also been a victim of posers pretending to be “Erick” in order to discredit me.” Sad to tell you this but other people are called Erick too.”

It doesn’t matter what people are called, Shooter; nobody could ever discredit Erick more than he does himself every day.

Snake says:

04:30pm | 18/01/12

Good point as always Erick.

Anonymity does not breed hate, it breeds honesty.

People are more likely to be honest about something when there are no consequences for their actions. The fact that the “right thing to do” by PC standards has drifted so far from reality is the problem. Not the online voice of people.

I don’t understand why it is all well and good to publicly compliment a person, a group of people or a minority, but when we highlight flaws with the same group of targets the words “racist” and “bigot” are peppered throughout responses from the leftist brigade of rainbow warriors.

Too many “forced” apologies just to save face in a pathetically PC world are the cause of this push to name and shame. People need to start sticking by their comments and perhaps look to “fix” the behaviour of the targets that cause these stereotypes.

At my workplace, in my area of expertise, there are many many immigrants employed. Two subsets of these immigrants (who I won’t name for fear of NOT being published) does not sit on a toilet seat in the conventional method but rather squats on the seat with their feet ON the bowl. This technique, as you could imagine causes a huge mess both on the parts of the bowl that are not designed for such punishment, on the floor tiles AND on the cubicle walls. Now apart from the mess, there is the hygenic worry that a quick mop and a wipe does not fix. In response to this behaviour the company put up signs depicting the CORRECT way to use the toilets.

Of course the problem is we all know who does it, and we all visit floors that this minority DO NOT occupy just for cleaner toilets. Now while the company is attempting to rectify the problem with signs and instructions, there is NO way to “catch” someone in the act and enforce the rules. This creates a hatred for this minority amongst those not a part of it. From now on we detest anyone that fits the description purely because of this behaviour.

Is it the entire minority group that is guilty of this? Probably not. But the actions of a few of them cause us to dislike all of them. Is this fair? Probably not again, but let me ask you this, if you bought a Ford consistantly every year after your last one broke down, how many years would it take you to stop buying Fords altogether? Probably about 3-4, most people give up by then. I’ve had my patience with this group of people in the early years, now they have to prove themselves to me and I do NOT approach them with an open mind. That is human nature, not racism.

nihonin says:

04:38pm | 18/01/12

I like my anonymity Grey with two sweeteners.  Take that however you like.

Ohcomeon says:

08:43am | 19/01/12

Andy, ChrisL,

I think you missed my point (or more likely I just made it badly!)

If the subject under discussion had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the lecturer, why specify it? If the exact same discussion was about a white lecturer then his colour would not be mentioned as it wasnt relevant to the discussion.

So in the exact same conversation, why is it now relevant to point out that he is Indian?

Chris L says:

12:03pm | 19/01/12

@Ohcomeon - I believe I understood your point, but I disagree with it. If you need to identify who you’re talking about without using a name you would instead use desciptives. For example: “the person with the striped shirt”, “the blonde lady”, “the fellow with the stutter”, “the indian guy”.

There is no racism involved in acknowledging someone is from India, and it works to describe them because there are visible characteristics that identify people whose origin (whether personal or ancestral) is the Subcontinent. I don’t see why it would be wrong to include that in a visual description if it would be helpful in identifying them.

I don’t see any problem with using “white” or “European” or whatever as a descriptive as well, but it would be pointless if the majority of possible candidates were white (or, in the case of the lecturer, Indian) as it would do nothing to differentiate them.

Suzanne says:

07:47am | 18/01/12

Actually, many people who are stupid enough to express racism and hatred on the internet are ‘proud’ of their opinions and have no problem putting their real name to it.
And yes, employers do care if their staff are racist/sexist/homophobic bigots because it reflects badly on them. A mining company that does a lot of business with China for example is not going to be too happy about having an employee who can be linked to them denigrating chinese people on facebook or twitter. If you name your employer on any social media you automatically become a representative of them on that same media and so if you wouldn’t say it in the office, don’t say it online.

As for debating with these cretins, it’s usually pointless, particularly with the neo-nazi/white power morons. Their backwards ideas are so entrenched that nothing will change their minds. You can’t reason with them, you can’t debate them but you can let the world know the sort of people they are and decent people can show their opposition by boycotting them and/or their employers.

acotrel says:

08:28am | 18/01/12

@Suzanne
‘As for debating with these cretins, it’s usually pointless, particularly with the neo-nazi/white power morons. ‘

There are a lot of them about who cannot see themselves as others do, and have no self-recognition. They often espouse ideology which is straight from 1930s Germany, but they are not aware of this, due to their own ignorance. Where do you think all this asylum seeker bashing stuff came from?

nihonin says:

10:04am | 18/01/12

‘There are a lot of them about who cannot see themselves as others do, and have no self-recognition. They often espouse ideology which is straight from 1930s Germany, but they are not aware of this, due to their own ignorance. Where do you think all this asylum seeker bashing stuff came from? ‘

acotrel, coming form you that’s hilarious.

marley says:

10:42am | 18/01/12

@acotrel - “where do you think all this asylum seeker bashing comes from?”  Well, as a matter of fact, I think it comes from a variety of sources - some of which are based on racism, or anti-Islamic bigotry, and some of which are based on well-founded concerns about the weaknesses of the determination process, the manipulation of the system by asylum seekers smugglers and refugee advocates, and some of which are based on a general sense of unfairness about the whole thing.  In other words, I think you see a complex world in incredibly simplistic, one dimensional terms.  Racists do that too.

Wynston Cruso says:

10:54am | 18/01/12

‘neo-nazi/white power morons’ is a racist comment. For one I don’t think you’d have looked into their views at all before making it. This is not a defence of those groups who are well known to be racist, just pointing out that this naming and shaming could be taken to the furthest degree, especially where racism is falsely misinterpreted. Dangerous stuff, don’t agre with it at all. Even the racist morons are entitiled to free speech, they’re just words from anonymous users anyway so they hardly carry weight. This is particularly dangerous, because as humans we’re all different and inherintly racist to begin with, like it or not.

nihonin says:

11:35am | 18/01/12

Wynston, it’s ok for the ‘Left’ to slur anyone who holds a different opinion.  As they’re not bigoted in any shape, sense or form.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:35am | 18/01/12

I agree with Tory, Internet bigotry should be confined to attacking white, straight men between the ages of birth and death. Those evil chalkies have got it coming. Stupid first world creating, moon landing, Internet inventing honkie scum. Who needs em? Dumb gwai lo, white bread, cracker, skippy, freaks. Bigots the lot of them.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:46pm | 18/01/12

nihonin good point. It’s my understanding that different cultures and races are into self preservation, in that they want to preserve their very culture. While this is noble and indeed natural for human beings, it is inherently racist as it puts your culture before all others. People are racist, even the lefties who apparently aren’t. Oh except white European culture is different in that it is exposed as being racist, while it’s fine for the Chinese et al to put their own first, people expect the opposite of us. Strange world, and as much as I disagree with peoples opinions at times, they’re still entitled to them, even if they are over the top racist morons or their opinion is stupid. This is just a dangerous precedent.

Wynston Cruso says:

01:49pm | 18/01/12

lol ‘evil chalkies’. Made me spill my latte that I’m sure I stole off some more deserving person of colour.

Markus says:

02:49pm | 18/01/12

Wynston, culture does not equate to race. While a person’s race cannot be chosen or changed (short of emulating Michael Jackson), a culture can.

There are several countries through Europe that are definitely multi-ethnic and multi-racial but monocultural. France and Norway would be some of the most notable.

Being critical of different cultures is not racist, any more than being critical of being critical of different political leanings is.
Potentially bigotted yes (depending on the reasoning behind the criticism), but not racist.

Wynston Cruso says:

04:39pm | 18/01/12

Markus - yeah I get that, I wasn’t trying to confuse the two. My point was that different races, and sometimes the cultures that may be associated with them are preserved by those very races, which is inherently racist. Nothing wrong with it, just the way humans have evolved to look after their own first.

Peter says:

09:45am | 18/01/12

That may be true in theory (your first paragraph) but I think we are now all learning that in practical terms, it doesn’t work that way.  If people don’t like what they read, they just go find something on the net that suits their prejudices.  Or moderators block comments (or commentors) for example which they don’t like.  The result is I think that the internet (as we currently use it) is actually harbouring bad ideas, not disposing of them.

Bertrand says:

11:20am | 18/01/12

True - it is easy for someone to find people online who help validate their awful opinions.

Yet, I still don’t think it is reason enough to start hunting these people down in real life and exposing them to their employers as online racists or whatever.

To use an example, I have argued strongly on this website for drug law reform and admitted to the fact that I like to smoke a bit of weed on the weekend - an unlawful act. Does that give anti-drug people the right to find out who I am and report me to employer, in the knowledge or hope that I will lose my job?

Peter says:

01:20pm | 18/01/12

The irony is that the internet is removing privacy, not preserving it.  Pretty soon this debate will be moot and we will have nowhere to hide.

acotrel says:

06:41am | 18/01/12

@Joan
I make the following comments about religion generally.  I am opposed to pseudoscience, and I have a strong dislike for people who don’t recognise their duty of care which involves appropriate management of risk.  I similarly dislike authoritarianism, and those who want to control without a mandate based in democracy.

Mahhrat says:

06:43am | 18/01/12

@Joan:  And that is your absolute right.  The problem begins when either side (religion / atheist) starts demanding how the rest of us should live.

The funny thing is, you’re both as bad as each other.  You blame humans for their failures, but praise God for their successes, which is really, really annoying.

Hardline Atheists cherry-pick the worst of religion as some kind of catch-all that “all religion” is evil, never understanding that that action makes them just as “pig ignorant” as the people they deride.

As I say probably too frequently, you do not have a right to not be offended.  It’s the provision of legal protection against those rights which is one of the core problems facing Western nations right now.

Nathan says:

07:00am | 18/01/12

“I find much of the commentary made here against Christianity on this site by your writers and respondents `Pig ignorant, superficial, uneducated, poorly composed, petty, nasty crap ”  to be fare they don’t really attack Christianity at all just what people do in the name of religion. I think you are drawing a long bow comparing the treatment of the two groups. Haven’t heard of people saying much threatening towards Christians.

acotrel says:

07:08am | 18/01/12

@Mahrat
Just before my father died of a smoking related illness, he found religion and that was a good thing.  He knew the score and was able to face his death bravely. Another rellie had spent her life in the service of God, and while she was dying of cancer, had extreme anxiety about whether she had done enough good while on this Earth.

John says:

07:25am | 18/01/12

Well the western media is controlled by communists. This explains their marketing of anti-Christianity propaganda and promoting of atheism and marxist evolution.

fml says:

07:30am | 18/01/12

The other morning, while walking to work, minding my own business. A “Christian” called me Satan. Called for my death, and that i will burn in a lake of fire with the forthcoming apocalypse.

Calling me satan and claiming that my death will bring about the apocalypse is a little too flattering for lil ol me. I hadnt even had my morning coffee yet.

acotrel says:

07:41am | 18/01/12

@John
‘Well the western media is controlled by communists. This explains their marketing of anti-Christianity propaganda and promoting of atheism and marxist evolution.’

What a pity the DLP got the BIG A by the Australian voters ? - Oh well ! - You can always vote for Tony Abbott, he’s the next best thing !

Joan says:

08:00am | 18/01/12

fml - what makes you think he was a Christian? What makes you think he represents all Christians? - Ignorance I would say and plain bigotory.
Multi-Millions of Christians go to work daily, without harassing anyone. The man may be one of mentally sick people walking the streets and it is usually the Salvos, Vinnies who give them a helping hand. Unfortunately others use these unfortunates as a crutch to support anit-Christian bigotory.

acotrel says:

08:32am | 18/01/12

@Joan
Under the mental health act in most states, religous mania on its own is not a reason to certify people.

fml says:

08:43am | 18/01/12

Joan,

I certainly do not think he represents all Christians. But he was most definitely a christian because he was waving around a little black book with the word Bible written on it.

I think he took the meaning of the book of revelations a little too seriously. How seriously do you take it Joan?

subotic says:

08:46am | 18/01/12

Praise Jeebus that acotrel got a “Tony” into this comment.

See, there really is a Dog.

Sorry. God.

NCA says:

09:18am | 18/01/12

fml Don’t worry I think most people are a bit of a Satan before their morning coffee, I know I am

Chris L says:

09:22am | 18/01/12

@Joan - A lot of the commentary about religion is not hateful, but it may sound that way to a believer. I won’t deny there are some pretty rude, outspoken atheists online, but these extreme examples seem less prevalent (at least from my perspective) than the extreme religious people spreading hatred and falsehoods about atheists.

I find the best response is to simply reply as calmly, logically and honestly as possible and let the contrast in methods speak for themselves. You’ll probably find that method works just as well the more with nasty atheists.

PS. I’ve seen a few nasty comments from yourself on occassion you saucy minx!

Blind Freddy says:

09:31am | 18/01/12

Funny that- because I consistantly find YOU one of the most abusive and offensive posters on this site. And a Christian as well- who’d ‘ve thunk it?

PsychoHyena says:

09:33am | 18/01/12

@Joan, I find it interesting that you called fml ignorant and a bigot over their comment regarding an event that occurred to them.

Given the information available fml determined the person was a Christian. I also believe that fml knew the person in question was also mentally ill based on the fact that there are a number of Christians (in Australia) who don’t stand on street corners prophesying doom.

Now if fml made their decision based on the information available, BUT in your words they are still ignorant and a bigot, what does that make you as a Christian who has done no more or less in both the choice regarding your faith AND your choice to insult people who don’t agree with you?

fml says:

09:57am | 18/01/12

I thought it was quite obvious that i did not think all christians are like this, that is why i put “christian” in quotes in my post.

Joan says:

10:02am | 18/01/12

Bilnd Freddy -  if you mean backstabbing liar - that`s fact - common knowledge not abuse. and it is part of history today. - and the Australian voter knows who she is without mentioning her name. And who would thunk that you know what it means to be Christian??? From what you writ I thunk you know zilch - you`re as ignorant of spirituality as the racist is ignorant of racism. I`ll now take some time out to TeBow.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:32am | 18/01/12

Mahrat- I’m a hardline anarcho-atheist I don’t cherry-pick, I just don’t believe in any God. I accept that some of our thinkers have had God inspirations, poor deluded fools that they were, but what they came up with was often quite good in a primitive way to explain the inexplicable. (explain quarks, muons, and the latest Hobbs stuff)
For example I don’t mind four of the 10 commandments, quite reasonable really, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t commit adultery with a non-consenting adult, don’t know about coveting - coveting doesn’t hurt anyone, honour your parents (but not when they are un-honourable). I find the seven deadly sins much more offensive ...
acotrel - Pseudo science like Alchemy? - changing lead to gold is now within the realms of fact no longer fiction. Look what we do to uranium.
Could be that God is just the great big hairy thing that we as humans live on - like a louse on a mammal - fanciful adolescent shit I know but let’s entertain it for a minute just to get a perspective on our place in the Universe and beyond - hence I’m an atheist - what else but absolute coincidence is there?

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:36am | 18/01/12

Worse - the western media is controlled by elite atheist bourgeoisie who impose the seven deadly sins to the proletariat.

Joan says:

10:37am | 18/01/12

Chris L; Re my comments I say things as I say see them eg Not my fault that Roxon waving Winnie ciggies looks like a take-off of a scene from award winning `Summer heights High` blame it on Chris Lilley the creator of the program - if I had never seen the program there would be no connection. Get it!  Exactly what falsehoods are being spread about atheists - I must have missed them they come so rarely.

Ohcomeon says:

11:03am | 18/01/12

John,

didnt you get the memo in the 60s that the march of international communism was something the right wing made up to keep the middle class compliant?

Youre supposed to be afraid of Islam now. Its so unfashionable to be in fear of the incorrect boogeyman.

P. Darvio says:

11:29am | 18/01/12

Quote I find much of the commentary made here against Christianity on this site by your writers and respondents `Pig ignorant, superficial, uneducated, poorly composed, petty, nasty crap `

This should cheer you up…..

‘Welcome to the House of the Lord”

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

“HE knows where I am”

P. Darvio says:

12:15pm | 18/01/12

Quote: Well the western media is controlled by communists. This explains their marketing of anti-Christianity propaganda and promoting of atheism and marxist evolution.’

And who can we blame for Communism…..?

“Christian communism is a form of religious communism centred on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ urge Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to teachings in the New Testament, such as this one from Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship ...  And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. Also, because many Christian communists have formed independent stateless communes in the past, there is also a link between Christian communism and Christian anarchism. Christian communists may not agree with various parts of Marxism, but they share some of the political goals of Marxists, for example replacing capitalism with socialism, which should in turn be followed by communism at a later point in the future. “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Christian_communism

Wasn’t Stalin trained as a Christian Priest for 4 years – no wonder he murdered the way he did. Maybe Stalin just picked up his copy of the Bible and said to himself, Rape, Torture, Murder, Genocide, Racism, its all in the Bible – this looks good – how can I apply this to my own repugnant ideology?

What about the founder of the North Korea State Kim Il-sung?

Kim was raised in a Presbyterian family; his maternal grandfather was a Protestant minister, his father had gone to a missionary school and was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, and both his parents were reportedly very active in the religious community. Kim was an accomplished church organist.

For some strange reason the United Nations now still recognises one rougue Communist like state that doesn’t allow women the vote, has no refugee policy of its own and doesn’t accept refugees into its State borders, doesn’t allow others within the State to vote in elections (except for a very select group of virgin men who wear strange robes, and has an age of consent as low as 13 (and it not even its own policy – its borrowed it from another Country because its founding book of so-called morals ethics has no age of consent) – sounds like North Korea…err…well no it’s the Christian Church (Vatican).

At least we know were these pinkie Commo’s get there ideas and inspiration from.

Chris L says:

12:18pm | 18/01/12

“Exactly what falsehoods are being spread about atheists” - Some examples are accusations that atheists are outlawing religion, censoring free speech. Descriptions of atheism as a religion or saying that it takes faith to not believe in gods.

I suspect a lot of the falshoods are unintentional, simply due to an honest inability to understand. While describing atheism is easy (it is simply about not endorsing a theism) it seems that for many theists it’s as difficult to comprehend a life without believing in gods as it would be for a lifelong blind person to comprehend colour.

Joan says:

12:24pm | 18/01/12

Ho- hum! just put words Christian, Christianity on site and the spirtually stunted snap at bait with venom of a cane toad. 
P. Darvio : It would seem the fictional character House is your ghuru - each to his own -come 2000 years on and House will just be just a house you live in. Ho hum!

Seth Brundle says:

01:35pm | 18/01/12

@Joan - regarding your original point, you are right.  The Punch regularly publishes very offensive comments towards religious people and as an athiest I guess I have also been guilty of doing so.  There is no way many of the anti-christian comments I have read would ever have been published if they had been directed at a racial minority or alternative lifestyle rather than being aimed at christianity.

James1 says:

01:54pm | 18/01/12

“There is no way many of the anti-christian comments I have read would ever have been published if they had been directed at a racial minority or alternative lifestyle rather than being aimed at christianity.”

This is because people choose to be a Christian.  People are born into their particular race.  Thus, it is perfectly okay, albeit offensive, to mock someone’s religion.  It is racism to mock their race.  After all, why should I show deference to the choices of others?

PsychoHyena says:

03:03pm | 18/01/12

I’m a little concerned Joan, so many people have had you rebut their arguments but you have chosen to leave mine alone. I am so hurt.

Seth Brundle says:

01:37pm | 18/01/12

..ummm, where’s the ‘snuff porn’?  Got a link? Just curious….

Markus says:

07:35am | 18/01/12

When criticism of radical beliefs, corruption or even cricketing prowess are regularly met with accusations of racism nowadays, you know the word has lost all meaning.

fml says:

07:39am | 18/01/12

Ahhh John,

I have missed your crazy ramblings. How is the weather in your bunker this time of year? the missus and kids? well i hope.

John says:

07:50am | 18/01/12

fml

I am the greatest on here! Nobody engages me! You can’t argue with the truth! I’m considering changing my name to truth! What do you think?

acotrel says:

08:20am | 18/01/12

@John
‘Lets get to facts the majority of western society, has been totally brainwashed not criticize minority’s, multiculturalism and immigration.
The heaviest infected ones are the reds then women with their feeble minds’

I love your comments - keep them coming !  I think I will have to compile a book out of them. Pity my wife is away at the moment, I really want t o show this one to her.

fml says:

08:24am | 18/01/12

I think you should wait till April 1st! :p

acotrel says:

08:37am | 18/01/12

@John
I love the stuff about Trotsky - is it true ?  You wouldn’t lie to me would you ?

subotic Trotsky virus says:

09:01am | 18/01/12

@John, I for one welcome our new reptilian overlords.

How about changing your name from John to True Dickhead?

Has a ring of “truth” about it, I think…...

PsychoHyena says:

09:47am | 18/01/12

@Carz it depends on how the naming and shaming is done. In my book, insulting someone is not shaming it is insulting. Shaming is making people aware that this person has done something morally/ethically wrong.

Does your stance therefore mean that perpetrators of crimes should not be named? Shouldn’t the public have the right to know who is a potential risk?

In fact if you think about it the whole concept of punishment is a failure, as punishment obviously tells the person they are bad for doing the wrong thing. Seriously I think I should stop before I step through the looking glass.

Just to make it clear Carz, I have an idea on where you’re coming from, I can just see the arguments that could be made against your stance and I was not trying to invalidate it.

Carz says:

10:24am | 18/01/12

@PsychoHyena Shaming people is telling them they are intrinsically bad. Laying guilt about a particular action is telling them that that action is bad or unacceptable. It is the difference between “You did something bad” and “You are bad.” I’m not saying there aren’t people out there who are downright evil, because there are. I just don’t believe that we achieve anything by continually telling a person they are bad. That gives them no motivation to change. Absolutely punishment for criminal actions should be taken. In fact I believe that the criminal justice system is actually geared towards that, as each punishment is set to fit a particular (criminal) actions. And sometimes that punishment should include naming them, if only to protect the public from someone who has proven that they are prepared to commit a criminal action such as rape or child sexual assault.

I do understand your arguments, and agree that they can be used to shoot holes in what I am saying. At the same time I believe that shaming people is pointless. If you want to understand more about the difference between guilt and shame you should check out Dr Brene Brown on Youtube.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:48am | 18/01/12

Depends on whom you name and shame - imagine naming and shaming an ultra right wing so called Neo Nazi - her or she would revel in it!
“Shit someone has actually seen the tattoo of the ‘hakenkreuz’ on my bum. I must have offended heaps of people.”
On the other hand if you name and shame a well regarded Church of England minister for a faux pas it’s a very different matter.

Dieter Moeckel says:

11:00am | 18/01/12

PsychoHyena - you’ve touched on a favourite subject of mine.
I don’t believe in retributive punishment. Replace punishment with compensatory atonement and protect society with incarceration or exile for recidivists. What is the point of locking up miscreants at the public expense in correctional institutions without compensation to the victims.
Public misfeasance should result in public compensation and atonement. Individual victims should be compensated by the state and the recompense extracted from the miscreant through work by the miscreant.
Recidivism shall be deemed malfeasance and recidivists and I emphasise recidivists should be stripped of citizenship and civil rights and exiled or incarcerated to protect society from their malfeasance.

jay-ded says:

08:09am | 18/01/12

” Apparently, aggrieved parents commonly use internet forums to slander the other party during and after a break-up with the most common being used is Facebook.  The stupid just get stupider.”

And they wonder why their kids do stupid things on facebook.  Unfortunately the cretins are feeding and breeding.

Sam says:

08:27am | 18/01/12

“Wikipedia is going down this afternoon”

Will anyone really notice? They will see their page doesn’t open so will just go to the next site for the info they want.

Markus says:

09:08am | 18/01/12

@Sam, teachers will notice, as plagiarism rates in high school will drop by 90%.
Unfortunately, actual submission rates of assignments and essays will probably drop by a very similar value.

Fiddler says:

11:34am | 18/01/12

@Markus. I have three school age kids, pretty sure they won’t be doing any homework for say the next two weeks

Mahhrat says:

07:31am | 18/01/12

That’s the real kicker and a great point, Marley:

“Who judges”?

It’s been proven pretty conclusively that nobody has it exactly right, and even if they did, a lot of people wouldn’t agree with them anyway.

John says:

07:53am | 18/01/12

What ever happened to freedom of speech and respecting a person’s view point? This is clearly not the nature of a commie.

Mayday says:

08:24am | 18/01/12

I agree Marley, over the xmas break I had a similar discussion with family about difference of opinions and was told at one stage “you can’t say that.”

I was gobsmacked and have been thinking about this a lot lately.

What is worse racism or censorship?

In my opinion any subject should be open for discussion and people are free to disagree but to close down the conversation completely to me is a backward step.

AdamC says:

08:57am | 18/01/12

Marley, you make some excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it is fairly well-established in Australia that people don’t have the right to offend people based on their race. See the recent Bolt decision as an example of this. Online anonymity can be a useful safe harbour for those who dissent from the multiculturalist orthodoxy, but it is no substitute for actual freedom of expression.

Also, why should the internet be treated differently to any other medium when it comes to the freedom to offend based on race?

marley says:

09:39am | 18/01/12

@AdamC- well, I fervently disagreed with the Bolt decision and thought the ruling represented a real threat to the right to free speech, so I’m not about to impose similar restrictions on the net!

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:12pm | 18/01/12

Ask Mel Gibson about free speech. Ill be damned if the same fuss would of been created if he said the same things about Muslims.

AdamC says:

12:28pm | 18/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba, you must be joking! Haven’t you ever heard of Islamophobia? Apparently, it is running rampant. (I have even been told I have it!) Some people have even objected to women being expected to not leave the house without wearing a mass of sackcloth that covers her entire body with a panel of gauze covering her eyes. The intolerance, Simon!

The reality, of course, is that there isn’t anybody around who is quite so anti-muslim as Mel Gibson’s tirade was anti-semitic. There is also the, somewhat more delicate, issue that ‘Islamophobia’ usually doesn’t rely on paranoid conspiracy theories, but on the extrapolation of the attitudes and actions of particular groups of muslims to the general muslim population. So, you are not really comparing like with like.

Incidentally, I would have less support for online anonymity if the only sanction for perceived ‘racism’ was the contempt of one’s fellow human beings. However, in Australia at least, anonymity also protects people from unjust legal persecution.

Mark says:

01:13pm | 18/01/12

Totally agree with Marly. It has gotten to a point where you cannot mention a persons race in any form of conversation. The comments Tory posted are clearly the extreme, but I refuse to accept that comments I make such as “I wish those asians in china town would learn to look before crossing the road” or “I don’t want to go to that pub as it is full of lebanese gang members” are racist comments. PC has got to such a point where legitimate comments like this cannot be expressed. There is a difference between a comment about a social group of a certain race, and being racist.

I can hear the response already “why do you have to classify them by race”, it’s because it is a fact that this is the community group that consistently runs out in front of my car in that area of town (I actually hit someone last year), and I have been abused and had friends assaulted by those specific gangs in that bar.

I fail to see how comments like mine are any different to saying “lets not go to that pub it is full of boozed up ruby players” or “I wish truck drivers on the motorway would slow down”.

Just as many people on here claim it to be impossible to talk sense into the white supremists / neo-nazi crew; equally the extreme left refuse to understand that there are “gangs of middle eastern imigrant men” or “fresh imigrants from China who do not understand our road rules” - they hear a racial group mentioned and throw a hissy fit without even listening.

We are told we have a multicultural society, and as such there should be no shame in labelling groups of that society by their cultural background. On the flip side, derogitory comments based on racial appearance or cultural tradition are most definately racist.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:25pm | 18/01/12

AdamC

“The reality, of course, is that there isn’t anybody around who is quite so anti-Muslim as Mel Gibson’s tirade was anti-semitic”

That’s a funny way of looking at it. Look at the Punch/Talk back radio for Anti-Islam speech, plenty of it. How prominent is the Jewish Lobby in Australia? They seem to have plenty of pull.

I think you know as well as I do if Mel Gibson said about Muslims as what he did about Jews it wouldn’t of been a huge fuss. Everyone knows if you say anything Jewish in America its a career killer as they own virtually every movie production company and TV station there.

In regards to anonymity, my name and suburb is there, unlike some gutless people I stand by what I say.

James1 says:

01:50pm | 18/01/12

Keep in mind, Adam, there is currently an inquiry into Muslims in the US.  There are plenty of people on this site alone who think that any Muslims migrating anywhere is part of a global scheme to take over the world by migrating and outbreeding the previous inhabitants.  There are plenty of people who think that once you have Muslims in a country, it is only a matter of time until you have full sharia.  SImon’s comparison seems apt, in light of the facts.  Especially when you consider that the small number of nutters who believe the stuff I wrote above is not much bigger than the small number of nutters who still believe that the Protocols were a genuine document, and that both sets of nutters are equally vocal.

AdamC says:

01:58pm | 18/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba, I think you just disproved your own argument. My point was that anti-Semitism is different to something like Islamophobia as anti-Semitism is based on malicious falsehoods and blood libels, while Islamophobia is based on exagerrations and stereotyping. My burqa comment was (deliberately) an example of the latter.

Mel Gibson, as I understand it, claimed that Jews were responsible for every war in the world. This isn’t a mere exaggeration, it is a demonstrably false blood libel taken from fabricated, anti-Semitic literature. There is no equivalent to this in modern, western Islamophobia.

“Everyone knows if you say anything Jewish in America its a career killer as they own virtually every movie production company and TV station there.”

This is another classic, anti-Semitic fabrication. (Jews are also often accused, falsely, of controlling banks and the news media.) It is funny that Jews have supposedly owned about every industry since the mid-nineteenth century, despite successive changes in the actual ownership of major corporations in those industries over the period. It just goes to show the resilience of genuine racist doctrines and conspiracy theories.

It is a pity that you buy into all that.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:25pm | 18/01/12

AdamC

You need to take off the Star of David glasses for a second bud.

News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton ( Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves, MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish).

So you were saying? that doesn’t include reporters.

@James1

Thanks for writing that.

AdamC says:

03:59pm | 18/01/12

@James1, I don’t disagree that there isn’t bigotry out there towards muslims, just that it is vastly overstated and typically deployed as a political tool. An example of the usual exaggeration of Islamophobia is your claim that some people see muslim immigration is a ‘scheme’ to take over the world. I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone suggest that. I have heard people questioning whether muslim immigrants are able (or willing) to integrate into western societies, but that is an entirely different matter.

@SimonFromLakemba, well, holding executive positions is different from ‘owning’ an industry. (In that respect, your inclusion of a News Corp bigwig is particularly silly.) And you would really need to look at the universe of Hollywood execs and determine what proportion are Jewish to make your case credible. From there, it might be useful to know why you assume these guys all know each other and collaborate because they are Jewish. (Which, I assume, is your thesis.)

Lastly, given you seem keen to play this game with Jewish businessmen, can we maybe do the same with terrorists, rogue states, honour killers, Sydney drug-related drive-by shooters, mysoginistic Muftis and spurned-lover acid attackers?

simonfromLakemba says:

05:16pm | 18/01/12

@AdamC

My points are proven, yours aren’t. You are writing that you haven’t seen this or haven’t seen that, you must be blind if you haven’t seen it.

So executives don’t run companies? hire and fire? make decisions which movies they invest in? come on…

Newscorp are affiliated with Fox News, quiet relevant I think.

So you lose the argument so resort to extremist muslim bashing implying that I agree with it, pretty low. I agree with none of that and never have either.

But I’m assuming you want to discuss Sydney’s two biggest gangsters - Abe Saffron and George Freeman, both of Israeli origin?.

You would be surprised how I could show everything you list into Jewish incidents as well. But i guess you haven’t seen that either?

Do you feel the same about Melbourne’s/Griffith’s Italians?

James1 says:

05:58pm | 18/01/12

I have read that here many times from the likes of Ricky, Chuck and even once Tony of Poorakistan.  It is the same type of hysteria, it exists, and just because you don’t know about it doesn’t mean you can reject it out of hand.

AdamC says:

07:39pm | 18/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba, your last comment seemed a little confused, and confusing. As I see it, you claimed that Mel Gibson received a particularly heavy dose of scorn because he was slagging off Jews rather than Muslims. I explained that your comparison is invalid because Gibson was effectively making a loathesome blood libel from the anti-Semitic canon, which does not have any equivalent in terms of ‘Islamophobia’ or anti-Muslim bigotry.

You deflected this by claiming that Jews ‘own’ the movie and television industries - which is demonstrably false. In an attempt to support your false assertion, you provided a selective list of Jewish Hollywood executives, thereby neatly demonstrating the ‘white swans’ fallacy. Now, you seem intent on bringing Italians into the discussion. I don’t understand what that has to do with anything!

@James1, I am not conceding the point, but I will admit I usually sort screen out totally insane or incoherent contributors from my readings of the Punch. Ultiumately, you can always find some nutter in the dark reaches of the internet or talk radio who thinks something. The important thing is whether those views are at all widespread among either the mainstream, or particular groups in society. SimonFromLakemba, who I am kind of depressed to admit is one of the more level-headed regular Punchers, shows how mainstream anti-Semitism is becoming in society today.

subotic says:

08:24am | 19/01/12

@simonfromLakemba, WTF is “mega-Jewish”?

Someone is either Jewish, or they’re not.

That right there is some real racist bullshit if I’ve ever seen some.

stephen says:

07:34am | 18/01/12

I’m not a racists, and will you stand up for me too, or is it that you want to stand for only things you want ?

Kebabpete says:

08:22am | 18/01/12

Standing up for your country does not make you a racist. I stand up for my country at every opportunity, but I also have an empathy towards others that are less fortunate and I feel we can help.

You can have pride and humanity without being a racist.

Gary says:

08:24am | 18/01/12

It’s a real shame we use the same name, Gary. Changing mineon here from now on!

Rose says:

09:13am | 18/01/12

You do understand that being racist is the direct opposite from standing up for your country. If you think your country is so damn good you should be able to extol the virtues of your country without insulting anyone else.
Australia is an awesome place, but it is made awesome because of the influences hundreds of years of immigrants from all over the world.

Charles says:

09:28am | 18/01/12

Which country, by the way, Gary ?

Con F Reigns says:

09:29am | 18/01/12

WTF does “stand up for my country” mean?

How do you do such a thing?
Do you stand when they play Advance Australia Fair
Do you stand when someone shouts Aussie Aussie Aussie?
Do you stand whilst you get your southern cross tattoo?

I repeat
WTF

James1 says:

10:14am | 18/01/12

I stand up for my country all the time.  Equally, I abhor anyone who hates another on the basis of an accident of birth, as it is antithetical to everything my country stands for.

Loving one’s country is not synonymous with hating people for being of a particular skin colour.  Why do you think they are?

Chris L says:

11:43am | 18/01/12

This approach involves the danger of being forced into group think. Often, when surrounded by people of differing opinions it will seem better to keep quiet, even when in possession of valid, pertinent points, if there is a risk of being on the receiving end of mob abuse. Considering how some people here are ganged up on for offering their opinion I think it’s a valid concern.

Just looking at the number of angry responses some comments receive highlight this concern. Often even valid points put forward with respect will end up on the receiving end of an angry mob.

I’d rather information be free of the danger of retaliation.

Dieter Moeckel says:

12:53pm | 18/01/12

The argument of open truth v. partisan abuse is similar to the argument about anarchy - any true anarchist is not into seizing power as is so abusively portrayed in the media and by government.
Pure anarchist just get on with what they do and leave others to do the same.
I remember a few years (maybe decades) back when the World anarchist convention was held in Rome and the Italian police force cancelled all leave and flooded Rome with officers - and what happened nothing, nothing at all even the organised functions weren’t attended because anarchists just don’t do organised anything!
Chris - “being forced into group think” is the death of “free think” hence free speech.
All laws protect someone or something most after the vested interests of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat - examine the seven deadly sins one of the best examples of there suppression of the “have nots” no one else has to covet, envy, lust, or desire gluttony, or sloth etc

Rose says:

09:19am | 18/01/12

Is there any reason we can’t take care of both? I’d go so far as to suggest we can’t teach children to treat each other with respect until the adults start setting an example.
I’ll even dispute your claim that adults can take care of themselves, clearly some can’t, thus the high incidence of mental health problems and suicides/ attempted suicides.

James1 says:

09:47am | 18/01/12

What a childish response.  Akin to the argument of a three year old: “But they are racist too so that makes it okay.”

PsychoHyena says:

12:07pm | 18/01/12

@nfw you’ve hit on something there…. Anyone who wears a head-covering of some description must be a racist. Those umpires during the cricket and football… racist, the cricket players… racist, lifeguards…. racist.

Thank you for clearing that up nfw.

Smeagol's Wife says:

08:33am | 18/01/12

@centurion, you really still think your last line is true?  “Society is about justice, not vengeance. ”  Remeber the oh-so-inspiring scenes of celebration as Bin-Laden was killed, and Ghadaffi was summarily executed?  Yes, justice and veneance all on a neat sound bite eh?  I do not for one second believe we are about justice, it is all vengeance.  And that is the nature of man.

marley says:

08:48am | 18/01/12

@centurion - Hinch broke the law.  Making a racist comment doesn’t (usually) break the law.  That’s the difference.

John says:

08:35am | 18/01/12

It’s an interesting note, minority’s seem to have more contempt to whites then whites do to minority’s. But they are protected by the commie media, commie politicians and the commie law. Majority of crimes committed by minority’s unto whites is usually hidden, where if the reverse occurs then it’s front page news.

It’s all part of the big agenda which is multiculturalize the west. If the media stated the reality of a multicultural society, the white’s mass’s would revolt causing the agenda to break into pieces. Since they don’t want this, they hid all the ill’s of multiculturalism.

Western society lives in delusion. It’s all just one big lie.

Dan says:

09:07am | 18/01/12

“Majority of crimes committed by minority’s unto whites is usually hidden, where if the reverse occurs then it’s front page news.”

Are you blind?

I take it you’ve never ever read the Herald Sun or Daily Telegraph. Or watched Today Tonight or ACA. Or listened to talkback radio.

The ‘dangerous Muslim immigrant criminal rapist baby-killer’ is their bread and butter.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:34am | 18/01/12

That’s utter crap.

Most of the racism that they do have was from the early days when they first came here and copped sh*t 24/7.

I have never once been treated any differently at my friends house cause I’m White.

But I do believe that you should go after racists of all types.

Andrew says:

11:01am | 18/01/12

Its prietty obvious that your the one that doesnt read, watch or listen to any of the papers or programmes you mention. In fact your comment proves the point exactly, according to your ilk , if any programme reports thats an immigant or muslim has done the wrong thing then its a racist programme, however the fact that many crimes commmitted by ‘whites’ or ‘christians’ are also mention seems to skip your mind.

Dan says:

09:01pm | 18/01/12

Andrew -

Sorry? How does that prove I don’t watch/read/listen to any of the above newspapers or programs?

And of course white people commit plenty of crimes. And they’re duly reported. But when a serious crime is committed by a member of an ethnic minority, particularly a Muslim, it takes on a very different tone. Often accompanied by questions of assimilation, cultural clashes and social coheshion.

When a white person commits a crime, it’s never taken (by parts of the
media) as a reflection of an entire community. The same cannot be said for many ethnic minorities.

Rose says:

09:26am | 18/01/12

Are you also going to name and shame the ignorant Australians who make damn sure that the refugees know that they’re not welcome. You know the ones, they sneer at Muslim women or Indian men who wear specific clothing which identifies them as being from that religion, they wear t-shirts or bumper stickers with hateful slogans (Fuck off, were full or Australia, if you don’t like it leave).
For people to integrate (assimilation is not and should never be the goal) both sides need to make an effort.

fitter says:

10:03am | 18/01/12

this is such a dopey comment, i dont know where to start… keep watching today tonight

Rose says:

09:58am | 18/01/12

I’m a big fan of the Myschools website. Finally parents are able to make decisions based on actual outcomes from different schools. If you want to stop schools from being seen as lesser schools, the only way to do that is by the Principals, staff and school communities pulling their fingers out and improving the school.
As for bullying about the quality of schools, that;s not new. We were paying out the local public school for being crap and they were paying us out about being a religious school back when I was a kid, 30 years ago!!

Erick says:

08:36am | 18/01/12

@Don Oorst - “Theres a pretty effective way to avoid being named and shamed for being a racist asshole. Its called “Dont be a racist asshole”.”

Wrong. As many others have pointed out, there are plenty of people who will scream “racism!” when there is no actual racism happening.

People get accused of all sorts of things without any basis. Being a good person won’t stop an arsehole calling you an arsehole.

Dan says:

09:11am | 18/01/12

I don’t know Erick, not being a racist asshole has been working for me for years.

Erick says:

09:42am | 18/01/12

@Dan - You’re a racist arsehole.

There, now it doesn’t work any more.

Dieter Moeckel says:

11:10am | 18/01/12

Wear the hat that fits - the hat “racist arsehole” doesn’t fit that the end of it!
Who gives a shit about what people accuse people of. Muds does’t stick to teflon, other skins can be washed.

Dan says:

11:17am | 18/01/12

Hahahahaha, well done.

Adam Diver says:

11:24am | 18/01/12

Check-mate

DMR says:

11:07am | 18/01/12

Whenever I read Tory’s columns I increasingly get the feeling they were written by an Inner Party member from ‘1984’.

And I love how those who preach “diversity” will justify any means necessary to eradicate diversity of opinion.

Bruno says:

09:01am | 18/01/12

Who gets to decide who gets shamed? and for what?

Who do you think should decide in a democracy?
1- the people
2-the do-gooders
3-the party politic in power
4- religion

Tim says:

09:36am | 18/01/12

Bruno,
I don’t think any of them would be impartial enough.

Smeagol's Wife says:

09:07am | 18/01/12

@Vivian, that was a well thought out post, and thanks for that.  Like you, I also would abhor being judged by the likes of Tory or Ant.  Thanks for a piece of sanity in what will surely be a troll filled story.

Smeagol's Wife says:

09:26am | 18/01/12

Don’t know about racist, but most are certainly intolerant.

James1 says:

09:53am | 18/01/12

No.  Bogans are defined by a set of behaviours, and we all choose how we behave.  Therefore, being a bogan is a conscious choice that people make.  Being of a particular race is not.  That is something innate, something we are born with.

This difference makes race and boganity fundamentally different.

Markus says:

09:54am | 18/01/12

Check out one of the articles written by a Puncher recently for an example of real racism.

She was in absolute shock when she went to abuse a bogan for being a racist bigot abusing their white privilege, only to discover said bogan was of Asian descent.
It totally crushed her racist preconception that nobody of Asian descent could possibly be a bogan, that boganism was reserved only for whitey.

Markus says:

10:29am | 18/01/12

I agree with that analysis, James1. Unfortunately that same logic is often completely overlooked in the anti-racism witchhunt.

A person could say “I don’t tend to like Sudanese people”, for example, based on a typical attitude they have found exhibited by people from Sudan, but have all the time in the world for people from somewhere like Fiji or the West Indies, who despite also having darker skin, grew up with completely different cultures and attitudes that the person does like.

Regardless, such a person would still be considered a prime candidate for the ‘racist’ stamp in a ridiculous name and shame campaign like the one suggested in this article.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:39am | 18/01/12

There are Bogans in every Race/Religion. But whites own the title, wait till 26.01.12!.

Stephan says:

11:18am | 18/01/12

What about blood nuts, blondes, and geeks?

Just what constitutes racism and intolerance when muslims stone women BECAUSE they were raped?  Given me an AK and point me at the twits holding the stones.  I could give a rats about the musings of people (often youths) whose shoe size is greater than their I Q.  (yeah maybe me too )

Tim says:

12:58pm | 18/01/12

James1,
the vast majority of the people who use the term Bogans are only talking about that type of behaviour by white people.

James1 says:

01:40pm | 18/01/12

Then you will have to take that up with them, Tim, because that is not the sense in which I use the word.  I use the standard definition - the one which is used to describe a set of behaviours.

Richard says:

04:26pm | 18/01/12

That’s a very slippery slope your on James1. I for example oppose Islam because of its adherents behaviour towards women. Here that? BEHAVIOUR! Yet when I express my views, I get snide comments from you and Shane from Melbourne as being “Islamophobic” and “racist”.

I think if your going to play the categorise and mock game, all groups should be an open target. But if its only ok target one particular group because of their behaviours who all JUST HAPPEN to be white, yet its not ok to target another particular group because of their behaviours who just happen to be Islamic, well that’s a double standard, and you have being a hypocrite.

Wynston Cruso says:

05:10pm | 18/01/12

Of course Stephan, ‘ginger’ isn’t racist. Even though it describes a physical trait that someone was born with, it is predominantly white people who have red hair and so it is not considered racist.

Some forms of racism are perfectly acceptable.

James1 says:

05:53pm | 18/01/12

First Richard, as has been stated not all bogans are white.  You read too much into my thoughts.  Second, I applaud your opposition to the way some Muslims treat women.  It is terrible.  However, not all Muslims treat women that way, so to generalise is a touch reductionist.  Further, it is a behaviour that can be changed, and thus criticism is warranted, as is the case with extremist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians.

If I have called you a Islamophobe (which I haven’t - I never use that word because it is inaccurate), it would only be because you castigate all Muslims for the behaviour of some.

I am happy for you to criticise individual people on the basis of their behaviour, as I have said.  I am not happy to accept generalisations and assumptions about individuals based on the behaviour of other individuals.  I will call a bogan a bogan once I have evidence in the form of their behaviour, and given that a bogan is defined by their behaviour definitional clarity is easy to achieve.  If you oppose or hate all Muslims because some behave a particular way, that is wrong.  Because unlike bogans, Muslims come with a variety of different behaviours and are not defined by these behaviours, but are defined by worshipping Allah as the only god and Mohammad as his last prophet.  Is the difference clear now?  Stupid people might not understand the consistent application of principle, but that just makes them stupid rather than making me wrong.  What you are saying is akin to me opposing all Christians because the Catholic Church and the Exclusive Brethren aren’t very nice to the ladies.

That is entirely consistent, and if you think this hypocritical in any way, you either don’t understand my point or you don’t know what hypocrisy is.

Tim says:

06:40pm | 18/01/12

James,
If I said that people who eat lots of curry stink and started abusing them as “curry chewers” would it be considered racist?
I mean all types of people eat curries.

I assume you saw the reaction to similar about immigrants last week?

Your talk about Bogans is no different.

fml says:

11:56am | 18/01/12

Yes, Context.

Why is that so difficult to understand?. Also familiarity. You can say these things to your friends, but if you cannot understand why people get offended when these terms are directed at them by complete strangers, and how vast generalisations about race can alter public perception and taint honest people with untruths. Then you can come up with any reason you like really.

Peter says:

12:27pm | 18/01/12

Actually, Kebabpete, i think you’re wrong.  If anything, the internet is fast removing our traditional rights to privacy.  We are living an illusion to think that what we write online is anything like “private”.  Lol.

subotic says:

08:41am | 18/01/12

Minority Report, here we come.

Sorry Philip K. Dick…..

Nicole says:

10:18am | 18/01/12

I agree with your statement there is only one God under Islam and one rule the Coran and no one can say one word against and it is pure application of apartheid…. segregation at all front.
Why do we have to protect this kind of regime ?

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:43am | 18/01/12

Qur’an*

Islam is a religion, not a race.

An says:

10:55am | 18/01/12

Do you still remember when a honorable policeman in duty stop a burqa woman for a traffic offence and ask her to be identify legally.
The first word from the woman was you are a RACIST….
no further comments.

subotic says:

11:37am | 18/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba, is Islam a “religion” like Scientology is a “religion”?

maria says:

12:50pm | 18/01/12

bigotry, bullying and racism, hate and snuff porn, and all things dark and evil…... isn’t it what why we had the Cronulla riots from whom???
if this is not a pure attack against the australian way of life and a pure discrimination against our society than what it is…..

fml says:

02:45pm | 18/01/12

“Do we still have the right to be a nationalist -a patriot and be proud of our country and defend our heritage-our freedom-our way of live?”

Yes you do, but no one is forcing you to live any particular way. Also, ALL citizens of this country are allowed to put forward and live in a fashion they think is best for this country, as long as it doesnt break the law.

“In a democracy the will of the people is paramount or democracy is dead and inexistant…... is this a crime to fight and protect true democracy?”

Democracy isn’t dead, it is infact alive and well. You just want to tell other people to live like you. Which in fact you can do, just become a politician and get people to vote for you.

The fact that people have differing opinions shows that democracy is alive. 

“If this is not racism than what it is ??????” Its not racism, its you misinterpreting the definition of a democracy.

Rick says:

05:21pm | 18/01/12

@If this is not racism than what it is ??????” Its not racism, its you misinterpreting the definition of a democracy.

Democracy from the greek “demo”- “kratia"power to the people without any preferences.
means rule by the people.

Oligarchy means rules by the few.
IS AUSTRALIA A DEMOCRACY OR AN OLIGARCHY ?

Democracy has no colour -no preferences and only one language the will of the people as a whole.

Who is twisting the word like a true politician here?

Democracy does not believe in the one way discriminatory rule of the do-gooder politically correct nuts.

Please respect democracy by its own definition “rule by the people ” full stop.

fml says:

07:15am | 19/01/12

Geeez Rick,

“Oligarchy means rules by the few.
IS AUSTRALIA A DEMOCRACY OR AN OLIGARCHY ?”

Australia is a democracy, you can vote for who you want or stand for election.

“Democracy has no colour -no preferences and only one language the will of the people as a whole”

No, thats communism, democracy each person has a vote and a say.

“Democracy does not believe in the one way discriminatory rule of the do-gooder politically correct nuts.”

No, democracy listens to mixed nuts.

“Please respect democracy by its own definition “rule by the people ” full stop. “

No, The people do not rule, the people elect leaders, who are in office for a set period until they are up for re-election where they are voted for again by the people.

Once again, you have misinterpreted what is a democracy.

Rick says:

09:38am | 19/01/12

Does voting means sign a blank cheque ?
Will you sign a blank cheque ?
Does voting means surrender all your democratic rights to .....
Which section of the constitution give absolute power to a political party -a servant of the people and the Prime Minister…
That the way Hitler came to power
Geeez fml I’M an illiterate so are the swiss citizens.

subotic says:

09:27am | 18/01/12

If only the law would do something about people like Dennis Ferguson then this wouldn’t be an issue Martin.

I have 2 small daughters, and I promise you that I will do whatever it takes to protect them from oxygen thieves like Ferguson.

I do not condone vigilantism, but there comes a point where the law can and does fail, and the public have a right to protect themselves. I’d pay extra taxes to keep the likes of this sub-human excrement in jail, or happily do a national referendum to re-establish the death penalty to remove such filth from the face of the planet.

And in saying so, I don’t feel one ounce like a “hate-monger” towards such individuals. I feel like a caring father. And as far as most of Australia is concerned, Ferguson gave up his right to be classed as a human being a long time ago.

bella starkey says:

01:19pm | 18/01/12

@subotic, the problem is that your daughters are at greater risk from you or a family member, statistically than from some classic rock spider nonce like Ferguson.

Have you ever seen a show called Brass Eye?

Peter says:

11:02am | 18/01/12

Nowhere i can think of.  You’ve actually heard of people being sent to labour camps for spreading racism and hate?  i think you’ll find it’s been the other way around, mate.

Kafir says:

12:54pm | 18/01/12

@Peter, you have missed the point of my post. The “name and shame” tactics, indeed followed by labour camp sentences, were used by many communist regimes again people who opposed these regimes. ‘1984’ is only a book, but many people actually lived the hell of ‘name and shame’ for expressing their views.

Further, racism and racial hate, are not as simple issues as you think. The term ‘racism’, albeit wrongly, is often used these days as a term, where one criticises any ‘minority’ or other self defined group of people or the religion/ideology they follow. Someone here mentioned followers of Islam using this term against their critics for example.

Exclusion views are often very mutual, but media often only shows them in the light that favours the minorities (especially these vocal ones).

Can you name any group of people who consider themselves above all scrutiny and critique?

Nick says:

02:42pm | 18/01/12

@Kafir
Can you name any group of people who consider themselves above all scrutiny and critique?
ISLAM…...can’t say anything or ....
-Salman Rushdie
-Theo Van Gogh
- Ayaan Hirsiali
- Wafa Sultan
- Ibn Warraq
- Nonie Darwish
- Mark Gabriel
- Taslima Nasrin etc…..

Islamophobia has established itself in public discourse in Western society, lamented participants of the congress against discrimination and intolerance against Muslims.

What about the word democracyphobia ???????

Hoob says:

09:14am | 18/01/12

I too was deleted without cause.  It’s regular around here.

marley says:

09:45am | 18/01/12

Relax, boys, it’s not that you’re being censored, it’s that you’ve fallen prey to their lousy software.  Hell, even I have comments disappear, and we all know what an incredibly reasonable person I am.

RyaN says:

10:09am | 18/01/12

I second marley, their insistence in using crappy google api’s is what is causing you the grief.

Wynston Cruso says:

05:25pm | 18/01/12

I’ve had the same, but I’m a complete arsehole so it could be that.

Rose says:

09:38am | 18/01/12

On what grounds?
I reckon you’re an absolute idiot if you write off an entire race, every single race is made up good, decent people and then those who are not so good or decent. Write people off without knowing them just means that you lose the opportunity to get to know some pretty awesome people!!

Markus says:

10:03am | 18/01/12

@Rose, on whatever grounds they wish.
Provided someone is not breaking the law in doing so, they have every right to choose to like or dislike whoever they want, for whatever reason.

Peter says:

10:23am | 18/01/12

@Jack and @Markus - what do you mean by “entitled”?  You cannot express racist ideas, act on them or peddle them to others.  That is why we have laws about hate speech and discrimination.  You can hold such views, privately, sure, but so what?  The issue here is whether you should be allowed to peddle racism on the internet with anonymity.

marley says:

10:58am | 18/01/12

@Peter - the internet is not an Australian-only entity.  It’s perfectly legal to express racist and other repugnant ideas in many countries (possibly even here) under the banner of free speech, and no internet filter is going to keep them from being circulated to the wider world..

Peter says:

12:24pm | 18/01/12

@Marley, you are an Australian living in Australia and are governed by our laws.  If you break the law here, by uploading something on the internet that is illegal, or downloading something from the internet which is illegal, you are breaking Australian law.

marley says:

02:36pm | 18/01/12

@Peter - first, not everyone who comments on Australian websites is in Australia. 

Second, if I choose to read or download some sort of racist drivel in the privacy of my own home, well, that’s not illegal either.  Not according to the Racial Discrimination Act, anyway.

Third, if I choose to make a nasty but non-violent racist comment on this board in the belief that it is true, well, that’s not illegal either.

And fourth, I still believe that free speech is a fundamental right, and the right not to be offended is not.

Martin says:

12:47pm | 18/01/12

Who is this “Other Martin” and why is he using my name ?! 

Peter says:

10:13am | 18/01/12

Actually, they (we) do care, Peter, it’s just that the affect of such racism is not so pronounced as when it comes from the people who own and control pretty much everything.  Get it?

Wynston Cruso says:

05:17pm | 18/01/12

Tell that to the lefty pc brigade. People wouldn’t believe my ex when she returned from China after having been spat on by school children because they had been taught that whites are to be despised. According to some she made it up, because how can anyone but a white person be racist?

Markus says:

10:08am | 18/01/12

“Indeed they can but when 90% of Australia is white I question the effect”
Yep, when one white person is confronted and beaten mercilessly by 10 non-white people on the basis of their skin colour, I’m sure they will take a whole lot of comfort in the fact that 90% of the rest of the country is the same skin colour as them.

Osiris Fox says:

10:40am | 18/01/12

TruthDR - Your attitude is the reason there are racists. Listen to yourself, whites whites whites, white this whites that. You are a very bitter person.

South Africa is 90% black by the way and the whites there are on the receiving end of legal racism AKA affirmative action. This is morally grey given the history, but justified in the short term to redress imbalances. But, believe me, apartheid has created many racist black people. They did not just forgive the white man as the government would like people to believe. When a black kills a white, it’s just labelled crime and the skin color of the perpetrator is never mentioned (color can be deduced by names). But if a white kills a black, race is mentioned and it is always considered a hate crime. Percentage wise, more whites are killed by blacks than blacks are killed by whites. Make your own deductions from that.

marley says:

10:49am | 18/01/12

@TruthDR - let me get this straight.  An Aussie calls someone a wog, and gets beaten to a pulp for doing so, and you’re calling the Aussie ignorant?  Sorry, but responding to an insult by beating someone up is a helluva lot more ignorant than making a stupid, racist comment. 

And the rest of your argument is ludicrous.  I know of no definition which says that you can’t be a racist if you’re part of a minority.  Racism is what it is, and it doesn’t matter a damn whether you’re black, white, or purple, if you judge people by the colour of their skin you’re a racist.  Period.

Dan Webster says:

10:05am | 18/01/12

It’s almost like they pick agendas that will generate controversy. This helps increase the traffic flow, which helps attract advertisers. Which keeps them employed…....

Tim says:

11:39am | 18/01/12

Tory,
No we like talking about sport, food and what we’re doing on the weekend.
The Punch picks topics it knows will make people angry and cause controversy

Dan Webster says:

11:49am | 18/01/12

@ Tory- Gee, that’s interesting because I can’t remember the last I was at a BBQ and everyone was discussing Gay marriage or whether Christians should pray in public, maybe I go to the wrong BBQs…...

Chris L says:

12:58pm | 18/01/12

“No we like talking about sport, food and what we’re doing on the weekend.”

That’s what facebook and barbecues are for.

Are you guys trying to stifle debate about stifling debate?

Dan Webster says:

01:36pm | 18/01/12

@ Tory…... ” And also here you are, having a conversation in a Punch thread… “

Yes it’s crazy, I think I do come here for the controversy if I’m to be honest !!. I also like reading all of the comments (sometimes they are better than the article).

Despite hardly agreeing with most of your articles you do have my respect. I also admire your courage to stand by your opinion and ” call bullsh*t ” where you see fit, carry on.

Smeagol's Wife says:

10:59am | 18/01/12

So now you are encouraging thought crime policing?  If that teacher does not express her views at work or to her colleagues, then what is the problem?  If the teacher goes online and rants anonymously, so what?  To me, it is harmless.  Just like so many people in stable relationships jump on chat lines and live out fantasies. Harmless if not acted on.  And how are you going to know their private views?  And which views do you need to know?  So, I find homosexuality morally repugnant, but I keep that view to myself.  Based on that, should I be banned from working somewhere?  Who is doing the selecting?  Perhaps I would be on the selection board and I could with impunity disallow people who have ever taken a sick day.  Come on.  My private views are my own.  We should only look at a persons work if they are failing to perform in their tasks, or are clearly causing dissension.

Rose says:

12:36am | 19/01/12

A teacher can have quite a significant impact on their students. If for example a teacher has a particular dislike of a particular race, say for example Klingons, do you seriously believe that the Klingon children who end up in their classroom are going to be treated with the same respect as others, not a chance. If someone who works in a government setting also dislikes Klingons, don’t you think that debate would be skewed to support their beliefs, of course it will. Don’t you think evidence which supports the Klingons will be either downplayed or ignored, of course it will. If you find homosexuality morally repugnant you should most definitely be removed from any position where you get to make decisions which affect homosexuals (i.e., an employment interview panel which is likely to interview homosexual candidates).
Private views go a long way to deciding how you perform your job role, should you views indicate that you would discriminate against particular groups of people then there is an argument for informing your employer (name and shame). As I mentioned though it’s a very tricky situation and it wouldn’t be easy to come up with appropriate guidelines, i.e., heads you win, tails lose kind of stuff.

Matt says:

01:20pm | 18/01/12

It’s cute how you pick up talking points from your racist associates and then parrot them as ‘truth’. However, you are factually incorrect.

The UN does not define ‘racism’, although it does define ‘racial discrimination’ as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

I’m reading this to the letter, and I don’t see any ‘whites only’ clause. As usual, you’re a typical uneducated bigot complaining about the “PC brigade”, using completely fabricated evidence to back your case.

Take a seat, mate.

Bob says:

06:05pm | 18/01/12

Europeans, or white people, created the very concept of “race” to begin with, ultimately as a way to make a very specific group of people very rich. White people controlled law, science, and religion together to impose their self-appointed position of superiority over all other people on earth.

The social construction of “race” was the act of these white oppressors solely for the purpose of exploiting and dominating all people with different coloured skin.

Racism and discrimination are not the same thing.

Racism = Prejudice + Power.

It is not possible for a person within a minority group to be a racist. A black person, for example, is very capable of prejudice, of being mean, nasty and hateful, but considering the fact that minority groups in the USA, Australia or anywhere else have never had the power or the privilege of defining the very nature of their own lives, they can only be prejudicial, mean, nasty or hateful, not racist.

Again, white people created the concept of race in the first place, to gain from the oppression, destruction and denigration of the lives of others and therefore, only the oppressive white majority can be racist.

marley says:

07:16pm | 18/01/12

@Bob - nice troll.  Barack Obama would probably take issue with some of it, though.

Bob says:

08:35am | 19/01/12

@marley

The problem of racism is never individual in its nature. It is systemic and so deeply imbedded in our social institutions, such as education, family, religion, economics etc that even those who wish to get rid of racism find it almost impossible. To put it simply, we live with institutionalised opression, or institutionalised racism, without even having to be conscious of it.

Obama may be the President, but he is still a black man. He is still part of an oppressed minority. His position does not remove everything that happened in the past and is still happening to black Americans.

Obama may have great prestige, but when it comes down to it, he takes orders from those with the power to define, just like all of us. In fact if he wasn’t willing to do that, he would not be in the position he is in today.

James1 says:

10:17am | 18/01/12

“I do not like you because of your Marxist-Communist views. How’s that?!”

Both incorrect, and nothing to do with the topic under discussion.  Firstly, if Tory held Marxist views, which seems pretty unlikely, that is not anything like racism.  If you hate her for that, that is fair because she chooses to have those views.  If you hate her because she is white and has blonde hair, that is racist because those characteristics are innate.

I can see from this thread that a lot of people have trouble distinguishing between characteristics that we choose, and those that we don’t.

Hoob says:

11:37am | 18/01/12

and she’s far from blonde James1

Dan Webster says:

11:56am | 18/01/12

Dorian - SSShhhhhh…......I’ll give you the scoop,  her name is Tory Shepherd. (Don’t ask how I know this)

I think she is far cleverer than you think…....

fml says:

12:03pm | 18/01/12

These “Free-thinking voices” are nothing but the consequence of their own social conditioning, They are not adding the Bastille of knowledge like Galileo did. They are merely expressing emotion of a past experience.

Peter says:

12:10pm | 18/01/12

Well said Richard! It has long been proven that multiculturalism, of which the loopy left (including most journalists) is so proud, is nothing but an illusion and leads to significant unrest in societies who have attempted it - including ours. There are suburban enclaves in most if not all Australian capital cities now where it’s impossible to buy ham, bacon or any pork product. This is not the Australia I was born in, but what this journalist is suggesting is that if any dare crticise such a situation, they must be outed and shamed as racists! Why doesn’t she just advocate stringing all such commenters up from the nearest gum tree?

James1 says:

12:34pm | 18/01/12

On the other hand Peter, is it really a problem?  Must every store everywhere in Australia sell bacon and ham for you to be satisfied? 

I can offer you a solution - if the store in question has no bacon, go to a store that does. Better yet, plug that hole in the market and open a bacon store in these baconless suburbs.

You can criticise stores for not selling bacon if you like - only an idiot would call you a racist.  However, this will make you look a little silly for focusing on such a non-issue as who does and doesn’t sell bacon.

Peter says:

01:49pm | 18/01/12

@Peter - ham and pork?  Lol.  You are so a troll.  That actually made me laugh though, so not a bad one.

fml says:

01:12pm | 18/01/12

In a word no.

The things you have described are not racist. But once you start spreading generalisations and untruths and attributing them to entire populations instead of dealing with people at a personal level. Then yes it is. Please note i am most definitely saying not saying that you do this, it is impossible to gauge from your post. I am merely posturing a hypothesis.

just because someone personally cannot define racism, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It exists.

“Is it racist to express concerns about Islamic immigration to this country?” No, it isnt, but do people only express concerns about islamic immigration and ignore similar aspects of immigration of other people? Do people think all people of a particular, race, ethnic group or religion are all exactly the same and behave in a fashion that is deemed, unsuitable? Are these actions unsuitable? do they all contravene laws? or do people simply do not like them? If people simply do not like them, are these groups allowed to make similar statements? Who is allowed to make these statements and who isnt?

These are the questions which need to be answered, the only acceptable answer is one that can be equally attributed and freely practiced by ALL citizens of this country.

subotic says:

01:22pm | 18/01/12

Whose Australian way of life are we talking about?

White Australia way of life?
Vietnamese Australia way of life?
Lebanese Australia way of life?
Aboriginal way of life?
Southern Cross swastika wearing, Khe Sanh listening, ute driving bogan Australian way of life?
Militant gay vegan Australian way of life?

I’m a middle aged, white, Anglo-Saxon male, 4th generation Australian born citizen with family who have served this nation’s armed forces, and I’ll be buggered if I know what the “Australian way of life is”.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:38pm | 18/01/12

@Subotic

Its everything you described there.

You can go to a Vietnamese Restaurant and drink a VB, Australia is a mixed bag.

Or even better, go to a Vietnamese wedding and drink VB and sing along to Khe Sahn.

I don’t think anyone else’s way of life impacts yours. It only impacts mine a bit, if I want butcher shop meat I have a choice between Greek or Halal. Halal is pretty good, really tender actually.

subotic says:

08:18am | 19/01/12

@SimonFromLakemba, order me some halal pork chops for the barbie, mate….

Martin says:

03:15pm | 18/01/12

@JT

Please tell me this is a Jews/Holocaust/Irony thing and not fer reals ?

JT says:

06:29pm | 18/01/12

Irony Martin though rather scarily it seems a good idea to some.

fml says:

01:34pm | 18/01/12

“Boonga nose? Obviously a reference to the size and shape, “

Ahh no, not at all a reference to the size and shape, its a derogatory reference. You have red hair, do you have a ranga nose? Do ranga’s have particular shaped noses, or is it a generalisation with the first word an extension of a derogatory term.

“Dancing animals and music with sticks refers to their cultural dance, I thought culture and race were different things?”. Yes congratulations you have deciphered that they are two completely different words. Now take the next step and see that they are inextricably linked. Now if you can move on further you will see that calling a human an animal is derogatory. If you are having difficulty in understanding why, let me spell it out for you. It indicates that the practice is less than human! I mean how dare they be insulted! Its not like they are human or anything right? I am just making an observation, I mean who uses sticks? right?
Do words have no meaning further than the definition of the word?

Thinly veiled insults masked by ignorance is not ok.  If it is, surely you will see my inference in this post. Otherwise its merely a simple observation and should be taken as such.

Al says:

02:34pm | 18/01/12

I am assuming (and hoping) that this comment was meant to be sarcastic.

subotic Smith says:

08:14am | 19/01/12

You said it Seth.

Government “Re-education Structures” should be introduced into public centres so that anyone who begins to show even the slightest indication of “free-thought” can be instantly bundled through the 3/4 inch bombproof steel doors of the Ministry of Thought to be “encouraged” to think along proper party lines again.

And if they don’t - KILL THEM.

Winston, Room 101.

stephen says:

04:25pm | 18/01/12

I think we’ve all had enough of Aria Award Winners and crappy TV stars, thank-you senior Constable.

(By the way, have I paid my fines yet ?)

Mick says:

11:18pm | 28/01/12

How many times do we hear reported in the news that someone was at court for some heinous act, but their name is suppressed “for legal reasons”? What is that rubbish?

And Stephen, what are you on about? TV stars? ARIAs? Fines? Huh? I think he meant that there should be more attention on criminals for what they do, not on what some “racist” people say…

Chrissy says:

02:58pm | 18/01/12

So true Val. Nicely put.

Josh says:

03:15pm | 18/01/12

Except there is no such thing as “race” in the sense you are using it.

So it’s admirable if you are proud of being a member of the human race.

Ludicrous if you are still preaching the junk science of “race”.

And you might have the right to any dumb opinion you wish but you do not have a right to your own FACTS.

James1 says:

03:22pm | 18/01/12

I am exceedingly proud of my Irish heritage, and not in the least ashamed of this pride.  However, that is not racism.  Racism is when you hate entire groups of people based on their race. 

And you are right that racists have the right to express themselves.  However, those of us that think racists are stupid then have the right to say “look at the racist thing this stupid person said.  Aren’t they racist and stupid?”  That seems to be what the article proposes.

Also, you make an error in equating the left with being against racism.  All reasonable and intelligent people are against racism.  Even those of us that lean to the right.  Leftist anti-racism is, in large measure, simply jumping at shadows.

Seth Brundle says:

09:45pm | 18/01/12

Tell me Dom, are you a racist or bigot ?

JandJ says:

10:17pm | 18/01/12

Well I for one know that Erick, the dear soul, would be mortified by any suggestions of a “root” or anything along those lines - much too important for that!

subotic says:

08:08am | 19/01/12

Erick rocks!!!

He’s the only person on this forum who can turn any topic into a free for all on men’s rights.

Only one closest to Erick is acotrel, who can turn any single conversation in the known universe into a rant against Tony Abbott.

We love our Punchers…. o_O