I'm able to admit it when I fuck up
Brian S
You may have been following some of the threads here about PH's racist
tendencies and the challenges put to me to provide direct quotes.
I referred to a 'quote' which involved a reference to an 'asian
invasion'. It appears that I was mistaken, and that upon checking, I
have actually quoted a journalist's interpretation of PH's words and
attributed them to PH. All apologies to any on this ng who have been
adversely affected by this.
Now that I have that out of the way, I will refer you all to a real
quote from PH's maiden speech. The one about us being 'swamped by asian
immigrants'. 'Swamped' is a highly emotional word, and one which you would
hardly use in a complementary way (For instance, if you are looking
forward to a new flat-mate moving in with you, you would hardly say that
they had 'swamped' your pad).
I put it to you all that people of asian descent are still in the
minority in this nation, and we are in no 'clear and present' danger of
being 'swamped'. So what was the point? It was an attempt to deflect
criticism for this nation's poor economic performance onto asian
immigrants - a false assumption. THIS IS RACIST.
--
B.
--
'Strength and courage over-rides.
The privileged and weary eyes,
of river-poets search naivete.'
-Find the river, REM
David Brindley
>
> You may have been following some of the threads here about PH's racist
>tendencies and the challenges put to me to provide direct quotes.
> I referred to a 'quote' which involved a reference to an 'asian
>invasion'. It appears that I was mistaken, and that upon checking, I
>have actually quoted a journalist's interpretation of PH's words and
>attributed them to PH. All apologies to any on this ng who have been
>adversely affected by this.
>
Well, it takes a big man to adnmit his error. Congratulations (sincere
congratulations)
> Now that I have that out of the way, I will refer you all to a real
>quote from PH's maiden speech. The one about us being 'swamped by asian
>immigrants'. 'Swamped' is a highly emotional word, and one which you would
>hardly use in a complementary way (For instance, if you are looking
>forward to a new flat-mate moving in with you, you would hardly say that
>they had 'swamped' your pad).
>
So where's the *real* quote. Looks like you will have to appologise
again, soon.
I'll help you out - the exact words, as recorded in Hansard, are -
"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by asians".
Note well the use of the word "believe"; this is not an absolute
statement. Many people hold many beliefs, most of which are not
provable. You, for example, believe Hanson is a racist, yet are still
to provide proof. The god botherers in aus.religion.christian believe
their god is the only true god, yet no one has proven the existence,
let alone primnacy, of any of the world's myriad gods. So, it is
simply here belief.
Note further, the use of the words "in danger"; so she is not saying
it has happened, or it is happening, or even that it will happen; just
that there is a danger.
Yes, there is a danger if we lose control of our immigration policies,
there is a danger (as johnny thor loves to point out) because of the
sheer number of asians on this planet, there is a danger that we could
be overcome by war or other form of invasion. But that's all she has
said, that there is a danger.
Your flatmate analogy does not hold water. There are many who have
started out flat sharing with good intentions, only to later be
swamped by the other party's mates. Just like we COULD be, if we
continue the stupidity of a family reunion componenet in our
immigration policy.
> I put it to you all that people of asian descent are still in the
>minority in this nation, and we are in no 'clear and present' danger of
>being 'swamped'. So what was the point? It was an attempt to deflect
>criticism for this nation's poor economic performance onto asian
>immigrants - a false assumption. THIS IS RACIST.
>
Please provide the quote where Hanson said we were in "clear and
present danger" of being swamped. I think you read too much Tom
Clancy.
If your assertion about deflection is correct ( and I doubt it)then it
is still not racist. Stupid maybe, misguided certainly, but not
racist.
Let's face it, it's pretty hard to be racist about asians when there
is no asian race, as I was comprehensivly convinced by several asians
in this ng.
Looks like you need to do more research, or get a *REAL* quote; not
the ones above that you made up.
>--
>B.
>--
>'Strength and courage over-rides.
> The privileged and weary eyes,
> of river-poets search naivete.'
> -Find the river, REM
David
-----
"Criticism is not racism";
Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
Matt
Thomas Reynolds wrote:
>
> This is why _WE_ will winout in the end. ( I refer to those anti-Hanson)
> because we do not paint ourselves into a corner-or defend the
> indefensible. The day a Hanson suppr\orter says something like "I was
> wrong about that" I'll do a jig naked in front of Parliament House. But
> anythging they say will be loaded."Yeah, but asians should stll fuck
> off"
>
> It's really annoying to argue with the close minded.
I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
> Tom
yeah, tom, arguing with the closed minded really stinks. I'm with you
there, buddy.
Matt
Thomas Reynolds
Brian S wrote:
> You may have been following some of the threads here about PH's
> racist
> tendencies and the challenges put to me to provide direct quotes.
> I referred to a 'quote' which involved a reference to an 'asian
> invasion'. It appears that I was mistaken, and that upon checking, I
>
> have actually quoted a journalist's interpretation of PH's words and
> attributed them to PH. All apologies to any on this ng who have been
> adversely affected by this.
>
This is why _WE_ will winout in the end. ( I refer to those anti-Hanson)
because we do not paint ourselves into a corner-or defend the
indefensible. The day a Hanson suppr\orter says something like "I was
wrong about that" I'll do a jig naked in front of Parliament House. But
anythging they say will be loaded."Yeah, but asians should stll fuck
off"
It's really annoying to argue with the close minded.
Tom
--
Tom Reynolds Sail no:AUS 666 |tho...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Hawthorn 3122 Australia |http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~thomasr/
"I dunno, I'm just spinnin'"-Spot, Tarifa '97
Alan Luchetti
Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes -
>I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person
>says he isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get
>handouts based on the colour of their skin (then promptly
>calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
I'm with you Matt. What your hypothetical hyocritical racist
in denial should be saying is not 'Aboriginals should get
handouts based on the colour of their skin', but 'Aboriginals
in need are best helped by a specialist agencies best equipped
to understand their needs and by forms of assistance tailored
to their particular needs'.
Let me tell you about another kind of hypothetical hypocritical
racist in denial. This is the one who says 'Native title is a
crock because it's racially based'. What he should be saying
is 'Recognition of pre-colonial title should not be denied
just because its holders happen to be of another race'.
- -
alan
L
\-/
Col Clark
On 10 Sep 1997 08:50:02 GMT, Alan Luchetti
<luchetti@DEL_CAPStalent.com.au> wrote:
.>I'm with you Matt. What your hypothetical hyocritical racist
.>in denial should be saying is not 'Aboriginals should get
.>handouts based on the colour of their skin',
I think that this is exactly what a non racist should say.
.>but 'Aboriginals
.>in need are best helped by a specialist agencies best equipped
.>to understand their needs and by forms of assistance tailored
.>to their particular needs'.
That is racist. Why specify "Aboriginals"? Wouldn't it be better
to substitute the word "Australians"?
.>Let me tell you about another kind of hypothetical hypocritical
.>racist in denial. This is the one who says 'Native title is a
.>crock because it's racially based'. What he should be saying
.>is 'Recognition of pre-colonial title should not be denied
.>just because its holders happen to be of another race'.
How far back would you extend this? What rights would
you give pre colonial owners? Would this extend to any
pre aboriginal owners?
The land was taken from the aborigines by Europeans
a couple of hundred years ago, it will only serve to divide
the nation to try and carve it up now. Or is that the purpose?
>
>- -
>alan
> L
>\-/
>
>
Col
...............................................
"If my government doesn't trust me with my guns,
why should I trust them with theirs?"
...............................................
Mr Mark Jose
Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:03:36 +1000,
>bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>
[...]
>> Now that I have that out of the way, I will refer you all to a real
>>quote from PH's maiden speech. The one about us being 'swamped by asian
>>immigrants'. 'Swamped' is a highly emotional word, and one which you would
>>hardly use in a complementary way (For instance, if you are looking
>>forward to a new flat-mate moving in with you, you would hardly say that
>>they had 'swamped' your pad).
>>
>So where's the *real* quote. Looks like you will have to appologise
>again, soon.
>
>I'll help you out - the exact words, as recorded in Hansard, are -
>
>"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by asians".
>
>Note well the use of the word "believe"; this is not an absolute
>statement. Many people hold many beliefs, most of which are not
And this is why her "beliefs" are so decried by most intelligent
Australians. Only pure bigots and morons would suggest that "asians" are
in danger of swamping this country; "Europeans" still far outnumber them.
So, like so many of her propositions and beliefs it is based not in fact but
in bigotry.
>provable. You, for example, believe Hanson is a racist, yet are still
>to provide proof. The god botherers in aus.religion.christian believe
"They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not
assimilate".
Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
racism!
>their god is the only true god, yet no one has proven the existence,
>let alone primnacy, of any of the world's myriad gods. So, it is
>simply here belief.
Where's the logic behind comparing being a racist like Hanson and a believer
in God? Oh, I see, when both profess to have the answer and shove that
answer down our collective throats hoping we won't challenge the "belief",
then we have a basis for comparison. Indeed, you are correct.
>Note further, the use of the words "in danger"; so she is not saying
>it has happened, or it is happening, or even that it will happen; just
>that there is a danger.
Oh yes she did. Quote: "Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming
into this country were of Asian origin".
The danger she professes of is that it will continue to grow and outnumber
the number of predominantly white Europeans that migrate here. Purely a
statement of a racist worried about mixing our society with these "lesser"
societies!
>Yes, there is a danger if we lose control of our immigration policies,
>there is a danger (as johnny thor loves to point out) because of the
>sheer number of asians on this planet, there is a danger that we could
>be overcome by war or other form of invasion. But that's all she has
>said, that there is a danger.
If that is all you want to read then fine, continue being ignorant to the
facts. The facts, plainly, are that Hanson sees an ever growing number of
non-Europeans coming here and she doesn't like it. She made NO mention of
the "swamping" of Australia by immigrants post-war, did she. Why not? Why
single out Asians? Why not single out New Zealanders, after all they
represent a large intake? Why not Greeks, Italians, Britons? Why? Because
she's racist towards someone that doesn't hail from her end of town!
>Your flatmate analogy does not hold water. There are many who have
>started out flat sharing with good intentions, only to later be
>swamped by the other party's mates. Just like we COULD be, if we
>continue the stupidity of a family reunion componenet in our
>immigration policy.
Fine. If you and her think family reunion is a problem then let's look at
that for ALL people. But first, let's look at the impact it has on Australia
and whether we are able to cope. But, hang on, didn't Howard do that before
announcing the decline in migrant quotas last time? Oh, yes, of course he
did. The trouble is, he didn't single out Asians, and that's what annoys
Hanson.
[...]
>Let's face it, it's pretty hard to be racist about asians when there
>is no asian race, as I was comprehensivly convinced by several asians
>in this ng.
Asian, is a native of Asia. Or are you saying that Hanson was speaking out
about something she knows nothing about? I guess you'll be right whichever
way you choose to answer.
Brian S
In article <3415c80...@news.bigpond.com>, Brin...@cheerful.com
(David Brindley) wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:03:36 +1000,
> bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>
<snip>
> > It appears that I was mistaken, and that upon checking, I
> >have actually quoted a journalist's interpretation of PH's words and
> >attributed them to PH. All apologies to any on this ng who have been
> >adversely affected by this.
> >
> Well, it takes a big man to adnmit his error. Congratulations (sincere
> congratulations)
Thank you (sincerely) :)
<snip>
> I'll help you out - the exact words, as recorded in Hansard, are -
>
> "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by asians".
>
> Note well the use of the word "believe"; this is not an absolute
> statement. Many people hold many beliefs, most of which are not
> provable. You, for example, believe Hanson is a racist, yet are still
> to provide proof. The god botherers in aus.religion.christian believe
> their god is the only true god, yet no one has proven the existence,
> let alone primnacy, of any of the world's myriad gods. So, it is
> simply here belief.
I would just point out that a belief can be racist. If I were to
believe that the white race (no such thing exists) were superior to the
black race (again, no such thing exists) then that belief would be
racist. Now we could get philosophical and argue that a person is largely
defined by their beliefs and experiences, but I think that's a can of
worms that we shouldn't touch. I think that we will continue to agree to
disagree.
You are entitled to your opinion and as such I don't think it is my
place, or indeed anyone's place, to tell you that your opinion is wrong.
Maybe I can just point out alternatives.
<snip>
> Your flatmate analogy does not hold water. There are many who have
> started out flat sharing with good intentions, only to later be
> swamped by the other party's mates. Just like we COULD be, if we
> continue the stupidity of a family reunion componenet in our
> immigration policy.
Point taken. God knows I've had my fair share of festy flatmates who
started out all sweetness and light... :)
<snip>
> Please provide the quote where Hanson said we were in "clear and
> present danger" of being swamped. I think you read too much Tom
> Clancy.
'Clear and present danger' isn't a PH quote. Its been used so often
before (not here, mind) as to be such a cliche that I thought it deserved
quotation marks. Call it a idiosyncracy of my writing style :)
> If your assertion about deflection is correct ( and I doubt it)then it
> is still not racist. Stupid maybe, misguided certainly, but not
> racist.
Well, I've yet to see PH put forward a policy that tackles the 'real
and efficient' (not a quote, another cliche) causes of this nation's
woes. I have seen a lot of smoke and mirrors, deflecting my attention to
immigrants and aborigines. If this is incorrect, am I to blame? If PH
had a sound body of policies to address the real issues (education, health
care, social justice) then I would be the first to support her. I put it
to you that the fault lies with her for not providing substantive
policies.
> Let's face it, it's pretty hard to be racist about asians when there
> is no asian race, as I was comprehensivly convinced by several asians
> in this ng.
No, it is very easy to be racist if you *assume* that there is an asian
race. A subtle difference, but a telling one. But I agree with you on
this point. Personally, I like to think of one race, the human race.
Isn't that warm and fuzzy. :)
> Looks like you need to do more research, or get a *REAL* quote; not
> the ones above that you made up.
I think I should steer clear of quotes and argue from first principles! :)
Matt
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>
> In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>
>
> >I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
> >colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
> >
>
> peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
> their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
However, some Aboriginals are not in need, just as some people who are
not aboriginals (however few) are in as much need as the most (needy)
aboriginal person.
You don't help needy groups, you help needy individuals. Programs for
the needy are fine without needing racial discrimination in such
programs.
> Ashraf
>
Matt.
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>Thomas Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> This is why _WE_ will winout in the end. ( I refer to those anti-Hanson)
>> because we do not paint ourselves into a corner-or defend the
>> indefensible. The day a Hanson suppr\orter says something like "I was
>> wrong about that" I'll do a jig naked in front of Parliament House. But
>> anythging they say will be loaded."Yeah, but asians should stll fuck
>> off"
>>
>> It's really annoying to argue with the close minded.
>I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
>isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
>colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
>
Excuse me Matt, but I was under the impression that amongst the aboriginal
peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"If it takes only one person to suppress your religion, then it cant be
much of a religion then can it?" - me
To find out more about the cult that is Scientology, subscribe to
ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY. Dont get me wrong, these people are dangerous!
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <341754...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>>
>> In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>>
>>
>> >I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
>> >isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
>> >colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
>> >
>>
>> Excuse me Matt, but I was under the impression that amongst the aboriginal
>> peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
>> their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
>However, some Aboriginals are not in need, just as some people who are
>not aboriginals (however few) are in as much need as the most (needy)
>aboriginal person.
>You don't help needy groups, you help needy individuals. Programs for
>the needy are fine without needing racial discrimination in such
>programs.
>
Thats why the aid is means tested.
David Brindley
On 10 Sep 1997 22:11:51 +1000, mwj...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr Mark
Jose) wrote:
>
>
>Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>
>
>>On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:03:36 +1000,
>>bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>> Now that I have that out of the way, I will refer you all to a real
>>>quote from PH's maiden speech. The one about us being 'swamped by asian
>>>immigrants'. 'Swamped' is a highly emotional word, and one which you would
>>>hardly use in a complementary way (For instance, if you are looking
>>>forward to a new flat-mate moving in with you, you would hardly say that
>>>they had 'swamped' your pad).
>>>
>>So where's the *real* quote. Looks like you will have to appologise
>>again, soon.
>>
>>I'll help you out - the exact words, as recorded in Hansard, are -
>>
>>"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by asians".
>>
>>Note well the use of the word "believe"; this is not an absolute
>>statement. Many people hold many beliefs, most of which are not
>
>And this is why her "beliefs" are so decried by most intelligent
>Australians. Only pure bigots and morons would suggest that "asians" are
>in danger of swamping this country; "Europeans" still far outnumber them.
>
>So, like so many of her propositions and beliefs it is based not in fact but
>in bigotry.
>
>>provable. You, for example, believe Hanson is a racist, yet are still
>>to provide proof. The god botherers in aus.religion.christian believe
>
>"They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not
>assimilate".
>
>Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
>demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
>anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
>description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
>racism!
>
No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
--
David
------------------------------------------
I got disappointed in human nature as well
and gave it up because I found it too
much like my own. J P Donleavy
------------------------------------------
David Brindley
>In article <341754...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>
>>Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> >I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
>>> >isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
>>> >colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
>>> >
>>>
>>> Excuse me Matt, but I was under the impression that amongst the aboriginal
>>> peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
>>> their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
>
>>However, some Aboriginals are not in need, just as some people who are
>>not aboriginals (however few) are in as much need as the most (needy)
>>aboriginal person.
>
>>You don't help needy groups, you help needy individuals. Programs for
>>the needy are fine without needing racial discrimination in such
>>programs.
>>
>
>Thats why the aid is means tested.
>
Exactly. If they're "black" it means they get the "aid".
>
>Ashraf
>
>---
>DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
> OR my service provider.
>
>**************************************************************************
>Ashraf Ghebranious
>Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
>
>"If it takes only one person to suppress your religion, then it cant be
>much of a religion then can it?" - me
>
>To find out more about the cult that is Scientology, subscribe to
>ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY. Dont get me wrong, these people are dangerous!
>
>
>"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
>**************************************************************************
--------
David
--------
Like a bird on a branch
in the heart of the night
I have searched for my freedom.
Ashraf Ghebranious
>On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:44:36 GMT, axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf
>Ghebranious) wrote:
>>In article <341754...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>>
>>>Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
>>>> >isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
>>>> >colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me Matt, but I was under the impression that amongst the aboriginal
>>>> peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
>>>> their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
>>
>>>However, some Aboriginals are not in need, just as some people who are
>>>not aboriginals (however few) are in as much need as the most (needy)
>>>aboriginal person.
>>
>>>You don't help needy groups, you help needy individuals. Programs for
>>>the needy are fine without needing racial discrimination in such
>>>programs.
>>>
>>
>>Thats why the aid is means tested.
>>
>Exactly. If they're "black" it means they get the "aid".
Are you insinuating that a liberal/national government would implement strict
scrutiny of dole payments, and leave payments to aboriginals unwatched??
Over the last 18 months, they themselves have talked about the need to watch
the monies given out in any form of welfare payment. The funny thing is they
announce a huge savings by clamping down on welfare cheats but you hear
nothing about the money you claim is been stolen from your back pocket.
Tell me, with a poll driven prime minister like Mr Wishy Washy, do you really
expect me to believe that he would let the chance go by where he can prove to
all and sundry that not only has he helped aboriginals get more, but saved
money in the process?
No. Not in the current climate. The fact that there is NO such claim or
announcement from the government speaks volumes to me. It says that despite
the clamping down, no such frauds that you speak of have been found.
So again you make an assertion that has no factual truth and is totally
baseless. So again you decide to slur all aboriginals for no other reason then
they offend you.
Racism is alive and well.
Matt
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>
> In article <34187f0...@news.bigpond.com> Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>
> >On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:44:36 GMT, axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf
> >Ghebranious) wrote:
>
> >>In article <341754...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
> >>
> >>>Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In article <34163B...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >I find myself in the same sort of argument when some person says he
> >>>> >isn't racist but then says Aboriginals should get handouts based on the
> >>>> >colour of their skin (then promptly calls ME a racist when I disagree.)
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Excuse me Matt, but I was under the impression that amongst the aboriginal
> >>>> peoples, a high percentage are in genuine need. It has nothing to do with
> >>>> their skin color at all when the government provides aid programs for them.
> >>
> >>>However, some Aboriginals are not in need, just as some people who are
> >>>not aboriginals (however few) are in as much need as the most (needy)
> >>>aboriginal person.
> >>
> >>>You don't help needy groups, you help needy individuals. Programs for
> >>>the needy are fine without needing racial discrimination in such
> >>>programs.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Thats why the aid is means tested.
> >>
> >Exactly. If they're "black" it means they get the "aid".
>
> Are you insinuating that a liberal/national government would implement strict
> scrutiny of dole payments, and leave payments to aboriginals unwatched??
Are you aware of the differences in Aboriginal welfare?
Lower means test at every level. It is a completely different package.
> Over the last 18 months, they themselves have talked about the need to watch
> the monies given out in any form of welfare payment. The funny thing is they
> announce a huge savings by clamping down on welfare cheats but you hear
> nothing about the money you claim is been stolen from your back pocket.
If Aboriginal aid package is the same, why does it exist? Can't they be
handled by the aid package that helps all other Australians in need? If
there is an Aboriginal person and a non-Aboriginal person in the same
need (of which there ARE cases) should they not be helped the same way
by the same standard?
> Tell me, with a poll driven prime minister like Mr Wishy Washy, do you really
> expect me to believe that he would let the chance go by where he can prove to
> all and sundry that not only has he helped aboriginals get more, but saved
> money in the process?
>
> No. Not in the current climate. The fact that there is NO such claim or
> announcement from the government speaks volumes to me. It says that despite
> the clamping down, no such frauds that you speak of have been found.
>
> So again you make an assertion that has no factual truth and is totally
> baseless. So again you decide to slur all aboriginals for no other reason then
> they offend you.
He didn't slur anyone. He did use a comment describing the "aid"
application method, though. You screwed up here.
> Racism is alive and well.
You apply the word Racism way too much, clearly upon anyone you do not
agree with. This is actually the typical liberal tactic when backed in
a corner without an argument, or that of a non-white person who wishes
himself to one day get handouts under the guilt industry for not being
white
You are crying wolf, and people will ignore you.
> Ashraf
.
Peter Mackay
In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>,
Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
> >Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
> >demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
> >anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
> >description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
> >racism!
> >
> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
Which Asian country do you think we should emulate? Regardless of what the
inhabitants look like, or what language they speak or what religion they
have.
We Australians, I suggest, prefer to live in our traditional way, and not
like any Asian country I ever heard of.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
tlim8
...
> _\ /_tlim8 writes
Please specify exactly what is the Australian Traditional Way and
provide proof that your specifications are correct.
Brian S
<snip>
This thread has drifted badly since I admitted my mistake. :)
Peter Mackay
In article <341A7A...@mfs05.cc.monash.edu.au>,
tlim8 <tl...@mfs05.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >
> > In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
> >
> > > >Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
> > > >demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
> > > >anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
> > > >description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
> > > >racism!
> > > >
> > > No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
> >
> > Which Asian country do you think we should emulate? Regardless of what the
> > inhabitants look like, or what language they speak or what religion they
> > have.
> >
> > We Australians, I suggest, prefer to live in our traditional way, and not
> > like any Asian country I ever heard of.
> >
>
> ...
> > _\ /_tlim8 writes
> Please specify exactly what is the Australian Traditional Way and
> provide proof that your specifications are correct.
No need. Go to the geographic centre of Sydney and compare it with the
geographic centre of Tokyo, Saigon, Singapore, Bombay. The differences
should be apparent.
One cannot define a culture with certainty, but we Australians know what we
like, and Calcutta ain't in it!
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
David Brindley
On 13 Sep 1997 09:54:34 +1000, mwj...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr Mark
Jose) wrote:
>Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>>>
>>>Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
>>>demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
>>>anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
>>>description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
>>>racism!
>>>
>>No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>
>Ah, so "Hansonites" have invented a new word to mask racism!
>
No, simply pointing out your error.
You refer to Hanson disliking a culture, therefore she is a
culturalist. You are still to provide any evidence of racism.
>Good to see that my estimation of Hanson supporters has not been
>undervalued. Nice one line reply.
>
Please get your facts straight.
The only support I give to Hanson is
1. To support her right to free speech, as I will support that right
for any Australian, no matter how foolish, intolerant or idiotic they
may be.
2. To ask peopole who glibly throw around lables to do some research,
rather than just relying on snippets on Sickly Minutes and Ray Martin.
----------------------------------
"Even the Hooligan was probably
invented in China centuries before
we thought of him."
-----------------------------------
- 'SAKI' (H. H. Munro)
David Brindley
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 06:35:04 +1000, pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter
Mackay) wrote:
>In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>,
>Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
>
>> >Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
>> >demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
>> >anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
>> >description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
>> >racism!
>> >
>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Watch the attribs peter. I only wrote this one line.
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <34195A...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>Are you aware of the differences in Aboriginal welfare?
>Lower means test at every level. It is a completely different package.
Yes. Matt. I am. DO you know why the means test is lower? Do you think it may
have anything to do with the average income of aboriginal homes are lower? And
no it does not mean they are all collecting the dole although some do. The
majority take wahtever job they can get. Usually the lowest paid and the one
with the poorest conditions.
And you or David have yet to prove to me or anyone else here that all
Aboriginals receive all benefits. If that was the case, then why waste money
on processing the means test?
ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
David Brindley
>In article <34195A...@here.somewhere> Matt <Ma...@here.somewhere> writes:
>
>>Are you aware of the differences in Aboriginal welfare?
>
>
>>Lower means test at every level. It is a completely different package.
>
>Yes. Matt. I am. DO you know why the means test is lower? Do you think it may
>have anything to do with the average income of aboriginal homes are lower? And
>no it does not mean they are all collecting the dole although some do. The
>majority take wahtever job they can get. Usually the lowest paid and the one
>with the poorest conditions.
>
So if their incomes are lower a means test is not going to
disadvantage them, is it?
Of course, by setting a lower means test it DOES mean that a black
family can get money denied to a non black family, simply BECAUSE THEY
ARE BLACK. Not because they have a greater need.
>And you or David have yet to prove to me or anyone else here that all
>Aboriginals receive all benefits. If that was the case, then why waste money
>on processing the means test?
>
I do not think any one is trying to make a case that ALL aboriginals
get ALL benefits, just that many get benefits simply by virtue of
their suposed aboriginality, rather than based on their actual need.
>
>ashraf
>
>---
>DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
> OR my service provider.
>
>**************************************************************************
>Ashraf Ghebranious
>Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
>
>"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
>**************************************************************************
--
David Brindley
>In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>, Brin...@cheerful.com
>(David Brindley) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>
> OK, so let's say that PH is culturalist rather than racist. That
>doesn't make her any better in my book. Why? Because it still means that
>she is judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few
>extremists. The problem is not so much whether she is racist or
>culturalist or whatever, but that she has embarked on a campaign of
>obfuscation and she has no real answers.
>
> Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing. For
>instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration, then maybe she
>should question actions of our department of immigration, rather than the
>immigrants themselves.
>
That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all your camp
followers started yelling RACIST without bothering to, actually read
(listen) and comprehend her message.
And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>--
>B.
>--
>'Strength and courage over-rides.
> The privileged and weary eyes,
> of river-poets search naivete.'
> -Find the river, REM
David Brindley
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:40:22 +1000,
bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
><snip>
>
> This thread has drifted badly since I admitted my mistake. :)
>
>--
Show me athread that doesn't, even when no one admits a mistake.
>B.
>--
>'Strength and courage over-rides.
> The privileged and weary eyes,
> of river-poets search naivete.'
> -Find the river, REM
--
Scott Steel
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:11:58 GMT, Brin...@cheerful.com (David
Brindley) wrote:
>
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:49:41 +1000,
>bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>
>>In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>, Brin...@cheerful.com
>>(David Brindley) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>>
>> OK, so let's say that PH is culturalist rather than racist. That
>>doesn't make her any better in my book. Why? Because it still means that
>>she is judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few
>>extremists. The problem is not so much whether she is racist or
>>culturalist or whatever, but that she has embarked on a campaign of
>>obfuscation and she has no real answers.
>>
>> Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing. For
>>instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration, then maybe she
>>should question actions of our department of immigration, rather than the
>>immigrants themselves.
>>
>That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all your camp
>followers started yelling RACIST without bothering to, actually read
>(listen) and comprehend her message.
>
>And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
Ive been watching this "hunt for a quote" thing go on for a while now
and Im surprised no one has mentioned the radio interview where Hanson
went on a diatribe about how she will represent everyone
(whites,greeks,italians,asians ect) *except* Aboriginal and Torres
Straight Islanders....... that seems to fullfill the requirements of
most definitions of racism....
>>--
>>B.
>>--
>>'Strength and courage over-rides.
>> The privileged and weary eyes,
>> of river-poets search naivete.'
>> -Find the river, REM
>
>David
>-----
>"Criticism is not racism";
>
>Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
Cheers!!
Scott Steel
reply to pulse23[at]hotmail.com
Brian
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Scott Steel wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:11:58 GMT, Brin...@cheerful.com (David
> Brindley) wrote:
> >And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
>
> Ive been watching this "hunt for a quote" thing go on for a while now
> and Im surprised no one has mentioned the radio interview where Hanson
> went on a diatribe about how she will represent everyone
> (whites,greeks,italians,asians ect) *except* Aboriginal and Torres
> Straight Islanders....... that seems to fullfill the requirements of
> most definitions of racism....
Indeed and its the one the Hansonites duck and weave to avoid.
I've mentioned it at least three times when ever asked for a
quote and it just gets ignored.
Oh, well. I look forward to the efforts by the Hansonites to
answer this one...
--Brian Ross---------------------------------------------------------------
"Go on, shoot coward. You're only killing a man!"
The last words of Ernesto Guevara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Luchetti
ro...@127.0.0.1 (Scott Steel) writes -
>Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
>>bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>>>Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>>>OK, so let's say that PH is culturalist rather than racist.
>>>That doesn't make her any better in my book. Why? Because
>>>it still means that she is judging an entire group of people
>>>by the actions of a few extremists. The problem is not so
>>>much whether she is racist or culturalist or whatever, but
>>>that she has embarked on a campaign of obfuscation and she
>>>has no real answers.
The problem is that *ism (invalid generalisation) leads to
invalid policy notions. So if she sees a problem with a group
or organisation, she says 'abolish it' instead of 'fix it'.
>>>Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing.
>>>For instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration,
>>>then maybe she should question actions of our department of
>>>immigration, rather than the immigrants themselves.
>>That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all
>>your camp followers started yelling RACIST without bothering
>>to, actually read (listen) and comprehend her message.
I don't know what itinerant tent show Brian is supposed to be
running but I don't follow it. So I suppose that makes it
technically irrelevant to note that this non-camp non-follower
has never been known for 'yelling RACIST'. I just say (write)
the word when relevant. It's amazing how those who never hear
a racist word appear to be deafened when someone else remarks
that they've heard one.
>>And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>Ive been watching this "hunt for a quote" thing go on for a
>while now and Im surprised no one has mentioned the radio
>interview where Hanson went on a diatribe about how she will
>represent everyone (whites,greeks,italians,asians ect)
>*except* Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.......
>that seems to fullfill the requirements of most definitions
>of racism....
If she says, 'I'm not a racist but X', or 'I'll be accused of
being a racist for saying this, but X', how could X possibly
be a racist utterance?
>>"Criticism is not racism";
>>
>>Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
...unless a high proportion of your criticisms are
unwarranted and unhelpful generalisations about other races,
other cultures and things foreign. In such a situation,
even valid criticisms become devalued by the obvious animus.
Brian
<m...@myplace.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:54:03 +1000,
> bsec...@mail.usyd.edu.auBEGONECAPITALISTDOG (Brian) wrote:
>
> >David Brindley <Brin...@cheerful.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > How about the one about us being 'swamped by asian immigrants'
> >or whatever it was? If that isn't a derogatory statement, then I don't
> >know what is - and it is aimed at a particular 'racial' group. QED, it
> >is racist.
> >
> And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
> > To reiterate, I will repeat it and make it real clear:
> >
> >'swamped by asian immigrants'
> >
> And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
> >is racist because:
> >
> >1) It is falacious. People of asian origin are still a minority in
> >this country and we would have to allow hundreds of thousands to
> >immigrate in order to be 'swamped'
> >
> >2) It is directed at a particular 'racial' group.
> >
> >3) It is derogatory.
> >
> And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
Glad to see you learned to use cut and paste.
> Your arguments are all invalid because you still haven't come up with
> an ACTUAL quote, you are starting from a false assumption.
You Hanson supporters just won't be happy until I come up with
something along the lines of, 'those abo bastards are the scum of the
earth' will you? I think it is you who are arguing from a false
assumption if you can't see the racist sentiment inherent in the line,
'we are in danger of being swamped by asian' immigrants.
> Go back and find the ACTUAL words, not the words you think you heard,
> or the words you want to hear. Just the actual words. Yoy may find
> therte were some qualifiers in there; words like "believe" and "in
> danger".
Let me makes this real clear (yet again):
1) A 'belief' can be racist. Just because I preface a statement with 'I
believe' it doesn't magically transform it into something urbane. For
instance, if I were to say to you, 'I believe that you are an idiot',
that little insertion of the word 'believe' would not make it any less
insulting!
2) As to the phrase, 'in danger', it is even more tenuous. Again,
using the word 'danger' does not somehow absolve the phrase of its
racist conotations.
> Once you have done your homework, you may be able to mount a valid
> argument.
Snarky aren't we?
> > While I think of it, how about that opinion expressed in 'The
> >(un)Truth' about Aboriginal people cannibalising their own children.
> >This is patently false. And racist. QED.
> >
> If it is true, and according to some anthropologists it is, then it
> cannot be racist. If it is untrue, it may then be patently false.
Care to name those anthropologists? And I want the ACTUAL quote
in their work about aboriginal people cannibalising their own children.
> However, although I do not wish to defend that statement, I cannot see
> it as racist as I believe evey race has some cannibalism in its
> background - to say otherwise MAY be the racist statement.
Maybe you should try pulling your head out of your arse before
you try to 'see it as racist'.
--
Brian Seckold 'Strength and courage override,
B. Med Sci the privileged and weary eyes,
University of Sydney. of river-poets search naivete.'
Australia - 'Find the River', REM
m...@myplace.com
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:54:03 +1000,
bsec...@mail.usyd.edu.auBEGONECAPITALISTDOG (Brian) wrote:
>David Brindley <Brin...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> > Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing. For
>> >instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration, then maybe she
>> >should question actions of our department of immigration, rather than the
>> >immigrants themselves.
>> >
>> That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all your camp
>> followers started yelling RACIST without bothering to, actually read
>> (listen) and comprehend her message.
>>
>> And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
> How about the one about us being 'swamped by asian immigrants'
>or whatever it was? If that isn't a derogatory statement, then I don't
>know what is - and it is aimed at a particular 'racial' group. QED, it
>is racist.
>
And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
> To reiterate, I will repeat it and make it real clear:
>
>'swamped by asian immigrants'
>
And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>is racist because:
>
>1) It is falacious. People of asian origin are still a minority in
>this country and we would have to allow hundreds of thousands to
>immigrate in order to be 'swamped'
>
>2) It is directed at a particular 'racial' group.
>
>3) It is derogatory.
>
And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
Your arguments are all invalid because you still haven't come up with
an ACTUAL quote, you are starting from a false assumption.
Go back and find the ACTUAL words, not the words you think you heard,
or the words you want to hear. Just the actual words. Yoy may find
therte were some qualifiers in there; words like "believe" and "in
danger".
Once you have done your homework, you may be able to mount a valid
argument.
.
> BTW, I would listen to PH if she had something to say that was
>worth listening to.
>
>> "Criticism is not racism";
>>
>> Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
>
> ...except when that 'criticism' is both false and directed at a
>particular 'racial' group.
>
Try again - you are still to provide an ACTUAL quote.
> While I think of it, how about that opinion expressed in 'The
>(un)Truth' about Aboriginal people cannibalising their own children.
>This is patently false. And racist. QED.
>
If it is true, and according to some anthropologists it is, then it
cannot be racist. If it is untrue, it may then be patently false.
However, although I do not wish to defend that statement, I cannot see
it as racist as I believe evey race has some cannibalism in its
background - to say otherwise MAY be the racist statement.
David
>--
>B.
>--
>
m...@myplace.com
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:29:48 GMT, ro...@127.0.0.1 (Scott Steel) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:11:58 GMT, Brin...@cheerful.com (David
>Brindley) wrote:
>
>>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:49:41 +1000,
>>bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>, Brin...@cheerful.com
>>>(David Brindley) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>>>
>>> OK, so let's say that PH is culturalist rather than racist. That
>>>doesn't make her any better in my book. Why? Because it still means that
>>>she is judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few
>>>extremists. The problem is not so much whether she is racist or
>>>culturalist or whatever, but that she has embarked on a campaign of
>>>obfuscation and she has no real answers.
>>>
>>> Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing. For
>>>instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration, then maybe she
>>>should question actions of our department of immigration, rather than the
>>>immigrants themselves.
>>>
>>That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all your camp
>>followers started yelling RACIST without bothering to, actually read
>>(listen) and comprehend her message.
>>
>>And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
>
>Ive been watching this "hunt for a quote" thing go on for a while now
>and Im surprised no one has mentioned the radio interview where Hanson
>went on a diatribe about how she will represent everyone
>(whites,greeks,italians,asians ect) *except* Aboriginal and Torres
>Straight Islanders....... that seems to fullfill the requirements of
>most definitions of racism....
>>>--
And are you able to provide an actual quote - the full unedited words
of the woman? Not the pathetic attempt Brian and his ilk make by
"quoting" the words they wanty her to say, not the words she actually
said.
David
>>>B.
>>>--
>>>'Strength and courage over-rides.
>>> The privileged and weary eyes,
>>> of river-poets search naivete.'
>>> -Find the river, REM
>>
>
>>David
>>-----
>>"Criticism is not racism";
>>
>>Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
>
Russell Dovey
If I said I'm probably going to kill you, and then kill you, it doesn't
make it any better. It just means it's worse, because it was
premeditated. In the same way, if PH says I'll be called racist for
this, she knows it's wrong!! or at least it still could be racist!!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally be at peace.
"I am curious, liutenant. What does it mean, groovy?" - Tuvok
"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room with so many
naked men." - Dax (don't think it's true? ask for the wav!)
"In short, I am foot loose, and fancy free." - The Doctor
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a terrorist. Wonder what my first target will be? :))
Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations should be shot. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Dovey
The reason Kooris get handouts based on the colour of their skin has
nothing to do with race, just cost. It would cost more to assess each
induvidual Koori than to just say "Well, most of them are in need of
help, so we'll help them. And if we happen to receive more funding from
the Government, we'll assess them properly."
Russell Dovey
I agree with everything Mr Mark writes here, and I thank Bob that he's
found an intelligent response that David Brindley can't refute without
looking like the insecure fool grasping at straws that he is.
Mr Mark Jose wrote:
>
> Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) writes:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:03:36 +1000,
> >bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >> Now that I have that out of the way, I will refer you all to a real
> >>quote from PH's maiden speech. The one about us being 'swamped by asian
> >>immigrants'. 'Swamped' is a highly emotional word, and one which you would
> >>hardly use in a complementary way (For instance, if you are looking
> >>forward to a new flat-mate moving in with you, you would hardly say that
> >>they had 'swamped' your pad).
> >>
> >So where's the *real* quote. Looks like you will have to appologise
> >again, soon.
> >
> >I'll help you out - the exact words, as recorded in Hansard, are -
> >
> >"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by asians".
> >
> >Note well the use of the word "believe"; this is not an absolute
> >statement. Many people hold many beliefs, most of which are not
>
> And this is why her "beliefs" are so decried by most intelligent
> Australians. Only pure bigots and morons would suggest that "asians" are
> in danger of swamping this country; "Europeans" still far outnumber them.
>
> So, like so many of her propositions and beliefs it is based not in fact but
> in bigotry.
>
> >provable. You, for example, believe Hanson is a racist, yet are still
> >to provide proof. The god botherers in aus.religion.christian believe
>
> "They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not
> assimilate".
>
> Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
> demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
> anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
> description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
> racism!
>
> >their god is the only true god, yet no one has proven the existence,
> >let alone primnacy, of any of the world's myriad gods. So, it is
> >simply here belief.
>
> Where's the logic behind comparing being a racist like Hanson and a believer
> in God? Oh, I see, when both profess to have the answer and shove that
> answer down our collective throats hoping we won't challenge the "belief",
> then we have a basis for comparison. Indeed, you are correct.
>
> >Note further, the use of the words "in danger"; so she is not saying
> >it has happened, or it is happening, or even that it will happen; just
> >that there is a danger.
>
> Oh yes she did. Quote: "Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming
> into this country were of Asian origin".
>
> The danger she professes of is that it will continue to grow and outnumber
> the number of predominantly white Europeans that migrate here. Purely a
> statement of a racist worried about mixing our society with these "lesser"
> societies!
>
> >Yes, there is a danger if we lose control of our immigration policies,
> >there is a danger (as johnny thor loves to point out) because of the
> >sheer number of asians on this planet, there is a danger that we could
> >be overcome by war or other form of invasion. But that's all she has
> >said, that there is a danger.
>
> If that is all you want to read then fine, continue being ignorant to the
> facts. The facts, plainly, are that Hanson sees an ever growing number of
> non-Europeans coming here and she doesn't like it. She made NO mention of
> the "swamping" of Australia by immigrants post-war, did she. Why not? Why
> single out Asians? Why not single out New Zealanders, after all they
> represent a large intake? Why not Greeks, Italians, Britons? Why? Because
> she's racist towards someone that doesn't hail from her end of town!
>
> >Your flatmate analogy does not hold water. There are many who have
> >started out flat sharing with good intentions, only to later be
> >swamped by the other party's mates. Just like we COULD be, if we
> >continue the stupidity of a family reunion componenet in our
> >immigration policy.
>
> Fine. If you and her think family reunion is a problem then let's look at
> that for ALL people. But first, let's look at the impact it has on Australia
> and whether we are able to cope. But, hang on, didn't Howard do that before
> announcing the decline in migrant quotas last time? Oh, yes, of course he
> did. The trouble is, he didn't single out Asians, and that's what annoys
> Hanson.
>
> [...]
> >Let's face it, it's pretty hard to be racist about asians when there
> >is no asian race, as I was comprehensivly convinced by several asians
> >in this ng.
>
> Asian, is a native of Asia. Or are you saying that Hanson was speaking out
> about something she knows nothing about? I guess you'll be right whichever
> way you choose to answer.
Russell Dovey
So you would deny someone else that same right to live in the
traditional way?
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>,
> Brin...@cheerful.com (David Brindley) wrote:
>
> > >Now, if this isn't a racist statement, then nothing ever is. She is
> > >demeaning any culture not specifically to her liking (and I presume this is
> > >anglo-saxon predominantly). She is demeaning a person who fits within the
> > >description of "asian" as belonging to a culture we do not want. That is
> > >racism!
> > >
> > No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
>
> Which Asian country do you think we should emulate? Regardless of what the
> inhabitants look like, or what language they speak or what religion they
> have.
>
> We Australians, I suggest, prefer to live in our traditional way, and not
> like any Asian country I ever heard of.
>
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
--
Russell Dovey
And the other support you give to Hanson is defending her racism at
every turn.
Russell Dovey
Thanks for reminding me, I must write these down somewhere :)
Scott Steel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:11:58 GMT, Brin...@cheerful.com (David
> Brindley) wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:49:41 +1000,
> >bsec...@BegoneCapitalistDogmail.usyd.edu.au (Brian S) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <341759c8...@news.bigpond.com>, Brin...@cheerful.com
> >>(David Brindley) wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>> No buddy, culturalist, not racist.
> >>
> >> OK, so let's say that PH is culturalist rather than racist. That
> >>doesn't make her any better in my book. Why? Because it still means that
> >>she is judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few
> >>extremists. The problem is not so much whether she is racist or
> >>culturalist or whatever, but that she has embarked on a campaign of
> >>obfuscation and she has no real answers.
> >>
> >> Pointing the finger at groups of people acheives nothing. For
> >>instance, if PH has a problem with asian immigration, then maybe she
> >>should question actions of our department of immigration, rather than the
> >>immigrants themselves.
> >>
> >That's exactly waht she atarted out doing - then you and all your camp
> >followers started yelling RACIST without bothering to, actually read
> >(listen) and comprehend her message.
> >
> >And you still haven't come up with an ACTUAL quote.
>
> Ive been watching this "hunt for a quote" thing go on for a while now
> and Im surprised no one has mentioned the radio interview where Hanson
> went on a diatribe about how she will represent everyone
> (whites,greeks,italians,asians ect) *except* Aboriginal and Torres
> Straight Islanders....... that seems to fullfill the requirements of
> most definitions of racism....
> >>--
> >>B.
> >>--
> >>'Strength and courage over-rides.
> >> The privileged and weary eyes,
> >> of river-poets search naivete.'
> >> -Find the river, REM
> >
>
> >David
> >-----
> >"Criticism is not racism";
> >
> >Pauline Hanson, Bathurst, NSW, 19/8/97
>
> Cheers!!
> Scott Steel
> reply to pulse23[at]hotmail.com
--
Alan Luchetti
Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> writes -
>To: Alan Luchetti <luchetti@DEL_CAPStalent.com.au>
>If I said I'm probably going to kill you, and then kill you,
>it doesn't make it any better. It just means it's worse,
>because it was premeditated. In the same way, if PH says I'll
>be called racist for this, she knows it's wrong!! or at least
>it still could be racist!!
[snip]
>The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is
>the day I become a terrorist. Wonder what my first target will
>be? :))
I'd be curious to see her legislation to impose penalties on
immigrants who make unsatisfactory progress in their English
classes -- though I think I'd be too doubled over with mirth
for terrorism to enter into my mind. Anyway, she does more
damage now with her contagious agro waffle than she ever could
with any concrete measure.
>Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations should be shot. :)
Yep. Your bottom line is the bottom line -- metaphorically
speaking, of course (though your racism detector is in better
working order than your irony detector ;-)
fug...@bigpond.com
>If I said I'm probably going to kill you, and then kill you, it doesn't
>make it any better. It just means it's worse, because it was
>premeditated. In the same way, if PH says I'll be called racist for
>this, she knows it's wrong!! or at least it still could be racist!!
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Listen to triple J, and you will finally be at peace.
>
>"I am curious, liutenant. What does it mean, groovy?" - Tuvok
>"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room with so many
>naked men." - Dax (don't think it's true? ask for the wav!)
>"In short, I am foot loose, and fancy free." - The Doctor
>
>The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
>I become a terrorist. Wonder what my first target will be? :))
>
And just what is it about democracy thet you find so disagreeable?
>Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations should be shot. :)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
fug...@bigpond.com
>The reason Kooris get handouts based on the colour of their skin has
>nothing to do with race, just cost. It would cost more to assess each
>induvidual Koori than to just say "Well, most of them are in need of
>help, so we'll help them. And if we happen to receive more funding from
>the Government, we'll assess them properly."
>--
What shit is this?
If abos, blacks, boongs, kooris, nungas, kaurna, or any other group of
people get special attention just because of their race, it is a
racistn action. This cannot be denied, and it cannot be papered ver
with shit like cost.
If a person gets money for belonging to racial group, they will
always expect tio suck on the public tit.
If they get m,oney for disadvantage, we may be able to help them
overcomne the disadvantage.
Of course, you will now use the usual racist line - But all abos are
disadvantaged just by being black.
Fucking bullshit.
Turn off triple J for a day, clear your head and get some rela
learning.
fug...@bigpond.com
>And the other support you give to Hanson is defending her racism at
>every turn.
>--
trimming points not relevant to your argument makes sense.
trimming everything leaves your comment in a meaningless vacuum.
Right where it belongs.
Brian S
<fug...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:03:15 +1000, Russell Dovey
> <st...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>
> >So you would deny someone else that same right to live in the
> >traditional way?
> >
> Any asain who wants to live in a traditional asian way is quite
> welcome to do so.
>
> There are plenty of asian countries they can choose.
>
>
> Any non-asian who wants to live inm a taditional asain way is quite
> welcome to emmigrate to an asian country.
I could equally well counter that if you want to live in a
typically Western way you could emmigrate to America. Oops, that's an
invaded nation as well, perhaps England.
--
Brian Seckold 'Brother can't you see those birds,
B. Med Sci they don't look to heaven,
University of Sydney. they don't need religion, they can see.'
Australia - 'Undertow', REM
Russell Dovey
Actually, I made the point that the "racist" handouts are given to
Kooris because of cost concerns. It's easier to classify someone as
Koori than go through the rigmarole of classification according to need.
I in no way agree with this state of affairs.
By the way, on a related subject, I reccomend all those on this
newsgroup to take a trip to the Northern Territory and live with the
Abos for a little while. They're fun. Different, (oh boy yeah) but fun.
I apologise beforehand foroffending any Kooris.
fug...@bigpond.com wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally be at peace.
"I am curious, lieutenant. What does it mean, groovy?" - Tuvok
"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room with so many
naked men." - Dax (don't think it's true? ask for the wav!)
"In short, I am foot loose, and fancy free." - The Doctor
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a terrorist. Wonder what my first target will be? :))
Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations should be shot. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Mackay
In article <34207519...@web.wesley.com.au>,
ro...@127.0.0.1 (Scott Steel) wrote:
It was quoted out of context, as is usual with small and vindictive minds.
The context can be found on the Global Web Builders' site, where the entire
interview transcript may be read. (I thought I downloaded a copy against
this eventuality, but I put it in a handy place and can't remember the
place...)