Racial Violence Continues in Australia

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Major Fubar-

Quote[/b] ] disagree. Saying you have the right to yell "fire" but must accept the consequences is like saying you have the right to rape or murder someone, so long as you accept the consequences. Inciting violence is not something that should be condoned in a civlised society.

Yet surely, in any absolute (typa existential) sense, someone does have the freedom to do the things you have mentioned. A person can usually rape or kill a person. Its physically possible and therefore in a sense they possess the freedom, and even 'right' (i notice a substitution of these words) , in a sort of nietzschean way, to do it. Whether what a person does is considered morally right or wrong is a seperate, subjective value judgement. The 'rights' that a given society allow us to exercise with relative impunity are not in any way identical to the freedoms we are endowed with at birth. And with this said i personally prefer a world in which we are at least not forced to internalise the necessary constraints imposed on us by society. No thought police.

For me it is enough that someone should know that something is considered wrong and they should under no circumstances do it. A world in which they believed they did not have the freedom to do it would appear slightly scary to me.

[edit- bloody nietzsche]

[sanctuary 19]

I don't really know the internal way the justice is functionnning in other countries and i would be interested to know it about this specific point, but in France there are laws (that has been reinforced since 1990, as it was existing before, but unfortunately rather ignored) that can get you into a nice lawsuit if you say something racist publicly.

I really don't get banning "hate speech", it does no good and just limits the things we can say freely. Some big forums in Finland have already banned pretty much all negative opinions on immigration no matter if they are racially motivated or not.

If you are willing to kill/maim/genocide people of certain ethnicity you won't be stopped by couple months of prison or a fine.

The problem is that a -public- speech is never as harmless as you can think.

I dont know about your country, but in France before WW2 and during WW2 we had an history of having political/syndicate leaders vocally expressing the most utter disgusting doctrines.

And that expression always was followed by action days or month later : attacks of people targeted by that kind of doctrines.

We learnt the sad way that -public- (i insist on that point, what you say inside your family or with your friend circle are just your words, they don't reach the mass medias) words are not just words, they are the "first movement" of an action.

So it is better to deal with disgusting doctrine that is expressed in public before the action that will follow really happen.

As in the case of racism, history just show what kind of action it will be.

But, that does not prevent the people in charge to investigate the cause of such expression to see why it is happening : just some sad individual deciding to get themselves some attention, or something more deep inside the society.

Freedom of speech is admirable and a great improvement of our societies, but it has its limits when the result of it will be a threat for the citizen.

[EiZei 0]

We learnt the sad way that -public- (i insist on that point, what you say inside your family or with your friend circle are just your words, they don't reach the mass medias) words are not just words, they are the "first movement" of an action.

So it is better to deal with disgusting doctrine that is expressed in public before the action that will follow really happen.

As in the case of racism, history just show what kind of action it will be.

The problem is not that racist public speech is not harmless. The problem is that legislation banning it does no good especially now that we have this wonderful thing called the internet. Because of this kind of legislation some public forums are afraid to allow even semi-legimate discussion about some issues while spending less than a minute googling will find me a ton of these festering racist shitholes where one can express anything they like with even more likeminded people.

[crashdome 3]

Side-Topic but related:

Funny how words can cross national boundaries and contain completely different contexts.

From the use of the word 'immigrant' from most of the European/Australian lads here, I gather it's used to describe most Middle-Eastern, Asian, etc.. people who've recently settled in European/Australian locations. Sometimes said in a deragatory manner by others?

In the US, we've used it to describe..... well... you guys.  

Has me thoroughly confused sometimes reading this stuff.

*Edit* Not to mention that whole Australian 'Liberal' party thing. Can the world be any more confusing?

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that legislation banning it does no good especially now that we have this wonderful thing called the internet

-Applying laws by punishing racists and people behind racism activities -> Temporary result. (the hatred would even become harder and less controlable).

-Sensitizing people by informing'em by medias, schools, universities, colleges, job-offices...and everywhere else-> Perhaps a first blow for a durable result.

Regards

Thunderbird84

[EiZei 0]

*Edit* Not to mention that whole Australian 'Liberal' party thing. Can the world be any more confusing?

The word liberal is used to denote strong supporters of free market capitalism and invidual liberties everywhere but in the US you know..

[denoir 0]

Given that Australia was a British penal colony, I'm not sure how much these guys have to be proud of their origins.  

No, but seriously, "race" is pretty much a scientifically obsolete term. There are a bunch of different lineages, but we share the same common ancestor who some 50,000 years ago decided that Africa was basically a pretty dull place and decided to leave. From there we branched out in a fashion well documented by our Y-DNA and mtDNA. There was local adaptation to the environments we moved to and hence the diversity of the human family. Incidentally those of European ancestry are the last who should be talking about 'racial purity' as Europe has by far the most homogeneous population - a very thorough blend of various lineages. The genetic diversity between two random African populations is four times as high as the genetic diversity between to random European populations.

And those in former colonies are really the very last who should be mentioning race. In Australia, America etc the merging of populations of different lineages has been for natural reason immense. Y-Chromosomal DNA testing has shown that in America for instance over 30% of African-Americans of European origin on the paternal line.

The genetic and biological differences between different lineages are minimal. It's just an adaptation to different environments that have occurred in the last 50,000 years - when we all branched out from one ancestor in Africa. As the majority of the people become more familiar with the genetic foundation of human diversity - which shows how "race" is a very pointless concept - racism based on biology will probably drop off.

But don't worry. We're still human. We'll find plenty of ways of one group claiming to be superior to another as we are both resourceful, creative and xenophobic by nature..

[shinRaiden 0]

Major Fubar-

Quote[/b] ] disagree. Saying you have the right to yell "fire" but must accept the consequences is like saying you have the right to rape or murder someone, so long as you accept the consequences. Inciting violence is not something that should be condoned in a civlised society.

Yet surely, in any absolute (typa existential) sense, someone does have the freedom to do the things you have mentioned. A person can usually rape or kill a person. Its physically possible and therefore in a sense they possess the freedom, and even 'right' (i notice a substitution of these words) , in a sort of nietzschean way, to do it. Whether what a person does is considered morally right or wrong is a seperate, subjective value judgement. The 'rights' that a given society allow us to exercise with relative impunity are not in any way identical to the freedoms we are endowed with at birth. And with this said i personally prefer a world in which we are at least not forced to internalise the necessary constraints imposed on us by society. No thought police.

For me it is enough that someone should know that something is considered wrong and they should under no circumstances do it. A world in which they believed they did not have the freedom to do it would appear slightly scary to me.

[edit- bloody nietzsche]

Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make as well, in attacking the commonly accepted - and imho mistaken - notion of the concept of liberty/freedom.

In Iraq under Saddam, a person did not have the freedom of speech due to minders.

In Nazi Germany, if you were a Jew, Gypsy, Pole, etc-etc you had no freedoms period. Your existance was at the sole whim of the state.

In many other countries that previously sponsored eugenics programs, if you were an 'undesirable' your institutionalization and sterilization among other things was not in your domain.

Examples etc-etc. The point is that freedom is not an absence of responsibility, rather it is the the enabling of responsible opportunity. I have the freedom of speech to express my opinions, whether they be innocent or inflammatory. I have the freedom to act in a manner that either leads to my promotion or condemnation. I have the freedom to determine the course of action that I wish to take, but I do not have the freedom from the consequences that that course of action inevitablely leads to.

I have as much freedom to murder, as I do to stand by, or to protect the assaulted. What course of action I determine to take declares my decided character, and initiates a chain of consequences I may attempt to avoid, but are inevitable.

Now a racist has as much freedom in many countries as do idiots and 'normal' people (with so many abnormal people in the world, who/what determines normal? ), but they do not have the freedom to ignore or be immune from the personal or extrapersonal consequences of their ignorance or animosity. Their influence whether applied or in absence affects both themselves and cascades through society.

More critically however, is the reinforced repression in the victims, or the percieved victims. External reinforcement of even inaccurate negative stereotypes can cause increased self-isolation, or worse retalitory idiotic ignorance in kind. Instead of staying home and showing what idiots the drunks at the beach were, large numbers of the gang members took to the streets vigilante style to 'settle' the score.

You know what they should have done? Herded both sides down to the beach, fenced them in, backed in a couple beer wagons, tell them that there's no ambulance service and insurance won't cover the medical bills or life insurance, and the police are going to look the other way, and let them duke it out. Then put it on live tv while the rest of the world goes and grabs something to eat during halftime. Then we'll see who the real macho idiots are, and who are the bored winos, and who are the camera whores.

[ozanzac 0]

More critically however, is the reinforced repression in the victims, or the percieved victims. External reinforcement of even inaccurate negative stereotypes can cause increased self-isolation, or worse retalitory idiotic ignorance in kind. Instead of staying home and showing what idiots the drunks at the beach were, large numbers of the gang members took to the streets vigilante style to 'settle' the score.

You know what they should have done? Herded both sides down to the beach, fenced them in, backed in a couple beer wagons, tell them that there's no ambulance service and insurance won't cover the medical bills or life insurance, and the police are going to look the other way, and let them duke it out. Then put it on live tv while the rest of the world goes and grabs something to eat during halftime. Then we'll see who the real macho idiots are, and who are the bored winos, and who are the camera whores.

Hear, hear!

[Bordoy 0]

Side-Topic but related:

Funny how words can cross national boundaries and contain completely different contexts.

From the use of the word 'immigrant' from most of the European/Australian lads here, I gather it's used to describe most Middle-Eastern, Asian, etc.. people who've recently settled in European/Australian locations. Sometimes said in a deragatory manner by others?

In the US, we've used it to describe..... well... you guys.  

Has me thoroughly confused sometimes reading this stuff.

*Edit* Not to mention that whole Australian 'Liberal' party thing. Can the world be any more confusing?

What do you call mexicans??

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lazy regarding matters of race and stereotyping/ taking the easy way out. If it comes to that, i used to have a 'racist friend' until he joined the USMC and we lost contact. He was quite intelligent, until it came to matters of ethnicity when a noticable fuzziness and jokey immaturity became apparent. A racist is a fucking dick. Even if theyre an otherwise nice person, theyre a fucking dick. If you cant see this you're a fucking dick and you need to listen to more world music, or have sex with an immigrant girl or something. I mean we're all human, life is too short. Grow up.

I didn't say they weren't 'dicks' in regard to the race issue. But why would I automatically qualify as a 'dick' if I said something such as 'I don't really give a crap what their opinion on race is'?

I ain't touchin any immigrant girl btw, well only from the US, Australia or Spain

Yes we're all human. Human nature to conflict etc etc.

[jtec 0]

I do believe they are called aliens in the USA

[Ares1978 0]

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right but it should stop when it would seriously harm others without 'real' reasons. (insignificant racist insults...etc).

No, it really shouldn't. Who decides what reasons are real? Or what is racist for that matter? Anybody who wants to shut you up, that's who.

It's very simple, your rights are always more important than anybody elses comfort, nobody has the right not to be offended and freedom of speech extends to every single subject.

Free speech is harmless. The ones that listen to racists are the ones that already are racists and the ones that will never become racists. There is absolutely no logic in banning free speech.

[LtUlrich 0]

Only the ones who cross illegally, stepping in front of hundreds of legitimate immigrants, are referred to as 'illegal aliens'. However, the liberal media characterizes them as 'undocumented citizens', and 'Mexican Nationals'.

Not to stray but personally I like Mexicans, really. They're one of my favorite ethnicities (okay so am I racist now?). But the U.S. illegal immigration problem is having some really noticeable effects and it's unfair, IMO, to the legitimate immigrants who attempt to immigrate legally.

A seperate but related example:

I stay away from people who wear the following:

Bulky jackets

bandannas

wifebeater tanktops

'bling'

tatoos that include roman numerals

pants around the knees

Everyone knows that these people are dangerous. Everyone also knows that most of them are black. Does that mean I think every black person is a ghetto gangster? No. Just like not every Muslim is a terrorist whereas (very nearly) every terrorist is a Muslim.

Racism is a red herring.

I should also mention that I'm an apartment manager, and we are presented with a difficult situation. A person of hispanic descent who has no U.S. identification and speaks very little English wants to rent an apartment. Accept him without knowing his citizenship, and you break the law. Deny him without knowing conclusively that he isn't an American, and you are targeted by the ACLU and others. It's situations like these that (intentionally) perpetuate racism.

[jtec 0]

I can understand some freedoms of speech being not allowed due to some of it inciting race hate (cough Abu hamza and all his other cronies) there are boundries that should never be crossed with the freedom to speak your mind out of respect for other people.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is absolutely no logic in banning free speech.

There are some limits that have been established in order to avoid that people would kill each others for these reasons.

if 'Freedom of speech' would have been 100% free then how would the world be today?

Regards

Thunderbird84

[Heatseeker 0]

Its interesting to see how racism is condoned by most in a sort of politically correct fashion when i also get the impression that most only visualise the typical racist has the white guy who hates all kinds of foreign imigrant minorities and the last always being the victims of ignorant racism.

When one ventures to understand or learn about how do such minorities and foreign people visualise, describe and think about "us" you will find plenty of racism too and most sadly, even racism being used has an excuse for unsuccess in general social integration and mutual respect. Door swings both ways and there has to be a mutual effort...

Personally i dont think racism is the one big cause for the unsuccess in imigrant integration in EU western countries, ignorance and lack of integration efforts and means is and by that i mean that governments should have considered and developed means to properly integrate these people in such countries societies, then theres the fact that minorities tend to keep tight and enclose themselves and the cultural diferences often keep people appart, that natural event is a big factor to what we know has ghettisation (?).

Diferent cultures and religions will colide with eachother, thats where it all beggins, i think racism will always be there, untill men start looking at eachother has individuals and not has a member of said group, race, religion wathever racism wont just be erradicated.

[Major Fubar 0]

There is no such thing as 100% free speech anywhere that I know of. If there were, you could in fact, say whatever you want (inlcuding the old chestnut of "Fire!" in the cinema) and suffer no punishment. The very fact that there is a punishment for such activity shows that there is no absolute free speech.

The only state in which absolute free speech can exist is in total anarchy and lack of law. Otherwise, a modicum of common sense must prevail on the limits of free speech. Basically, my ideal is do or say whatever the hell you like, as long as it isn't harming or endangering others.

[Ares1978 0]

There are some limits that have been established in order to avoid that people would kill each others for these reasons.

if 'Freedom of speech' would have been 100% free then how would the world be today?

Those limitations are there because people start whining every time somebody says something and in a democracy, everybody with a bit of power wants to stay popular. Frankly, I find it sad that only a dictatorship could allow free speech and get away with it.

Major Fubar, There isn't, but there should be. Free speech never endangers anyone, it's the lack of free speech and a means of getting your voice heard that causes all the violence. Yelling "Fire" in a cinema makes you an asshole, nothing more.

[ozanzac 0]

Freedom of speech is a given right to all people, no matter what the political climate, race, language, whatever.

Unless there is a form of mind control that governs what sounds a person can produce from his or her mouth, then any human, can make any sound they want, or possibly can.... Nothing is literally stopping anybody, from saying anything they want.

What stops people from saying whatever they want, is fear from the concequences. I could quite possibly dish out racial slurs to anyone I want, declare to every government in the world that I want to blow up the world and everyone on it, yell out 'Fire!' in a cinema, call my boss an incompetent fool or whatever.

Nothing, other than my conscience, is stopping me from saying anything, but for various reasons, I fear the concequences of saying such things, or simply don't want to come off to people as an asshole. But if I don't fear the concequences, there are no limitations to what can be said.

Whether or not people will give racists, extremists or whateverists the soapbox to stand on and shout rhetoric, and whether or not someone will attempt to shut anyone up via various means for any given rhetoric is an entirely different thing.

But anyone can say anything about anything. The level of offense taken by others dictates what the concequences will be for that person as a result of what was said.

[[aps]gnat 28]

I'm taking a large step back and asking;

Why is it that these riots in Australia created such a media event for the world?

Considering much worse events are reported daily around the world, is it because you (non-Australians) just don't expect this behaviour from us Aussies ?

I guess I for one don't expect it, rocks me to the core that OUR peoples engage it such offensive behaviour. But to be fair Australia is a BIG place with a small population and Sydney is THE melting pot of immigration. Eventualy something would happen, its still a shame it did/does.

As for being proud that some of our peoples can trace heritage back to being locked up and send out to Australian in convict sailing ships .... DEFINITELY .... why?, not sure, but probably has something to do with being proud to be "different".

And as for Howard creating unrest with his anti-terrorism laws, I disagree, I can clearly see the difference between a bunch of "different" people living up the street from me and "Terrorists". The political hype that goes with it means little to me, its just that ... hype.

And as for curing racism, while this is the 21st century, you can't expect to solve 10's of 1,000s of years of genitically programmed Tribalism in just 100 years, especially with this earths people now being the most mobile and most interractive since the beginning of time. More time will make it socially unacceptable and deeply "programmed"..... like cigarette smoking!

[chops 111]

Time for my own two cents (even though the minimum is five in Australia). Racism = bad. Playing soccer and drinking beer and smoking joints with lots of different coloured people = good. Doing nice things with women of all different colours = excellent.

Racists will never change their minds by being screamed at my those of us who see the light. I used to play footy with a bloke who was "fuckin gooks" this and that. He was at my house by chance one day. Said he was going to vote for the racist party (One Nation) my two left wing housemates berated him then stormed out (racist fellow also rather large).

My other mate said "Dude, if you had to move to Vietnam, wouldn't you go and live in the area where all the other Aussies were, where you could speak english and play footy? Just like the Vietnamese do here.

"Ohh. Shit yeah. I never tought of it like that. I see what ya mean".

It's easy to peach communication and understanding. Harder to extend it to everyone.

As for John Howard. That little prick is a big part of why I still live in Japan. "Australians aren't racist". The moron thinks we're all identical. It sends me into fits of rage whenever I hear his disgruntled school principal lectures on "Australians think...... Australians are.....". This whole assigning characteristics on basis of nationality bulolshit, is a big part of the problem.

Martin Bryant killed 36 people in one day. He's every bit as Ostralyan as John Howard.

After 9/11 we had ads on TV with this knob strolling through the park (throw a few darkies in the background, for good measure) telling us "Australians are friendly, democratic people...". Fuck you. We are the lowest form of life on the planet and some of the greatest examples of humanity you'll find. Just like on any other patch of dirt with a coloured piece of cloth and a boring song.

[Guest]

Freedom of speech is a given right to all people, no matter what the political climate, race, language, whatever.

Any right that is given can be taken away

But anyway...I'm not suprised this has happened. John Howard has been building fear (and greed, but that's another issue...workplace relations anyone?...) in the population ever since 911. Immigration, "children overboard" scandal, detention centers, etc etc. Throw in the Bali bombings and Australian troops in Iraq...well it's not suprising that idiots on both sides of the racial fence...they're all equally stupid...decide to go out and riot.

I'm really sorry it's happening, but considering the government we have (and lets face it, the people that voted them in), it's only going to continue. Australia is not ever going to be a happy melting pot, because no politician has the balls to take a stand when it's easier to be elected trading in fear. And that's the sad truth of it.

[Messiah 2]

the truth of it is that its not a problem confined just to Australia - the same things have been seen just as recently as in Paris, and i'll bet top dollar that similiar scenes will be seen across Europe and the world. I'm sure Bradford will kick off again, and the Met Police in London worked effortlessly to avoid something similiar kicking off in London after the 7/7 bombings

we're never going to live in a world without racism, there are too many ignorant people, lets just be thankful we live in one where its frowned apon (normally).

[harley 3 1185 0]

I'm not too sure where freedom of speech comes into it, except where it is covered by law; "Incitement to Racial Hatred" is a crime here in Britain for example.

But as the saying goes, Actions speak louder than words.  

I couldn't care less if some bozo's shooting his mouth off in public over a disdainful topic, as it merely shows his ignorance and isn't much of a nuisance.  It's only when people start actually acting on inflammatory exhortations when trouble begins - freedom of speech is something to be cherished, but if you cross the line, and translate words into violence, then quite frankly you should pay big time.

From what I gather there seem to be "bozos" on either side of the line in Australia (as with other places), but what I find interesting is that John Howard seems to be the biggest "bozo" of all. "All is calm", he drawls in his Sydney mansio.

And in the short term, IMO, Police Forces need to find a far better method of shutting down riots quicker.  A line of police officers with 12ga Shot guns drawing back the slide, reading of the Riot Act, and a warning that the first shell is a blank, and the rest are steel shot.  use tactics like that and the streets will empty quickly.  Either that or there'll be a lot of wounded idiots on the ground .