In Abbotts address to the IPA yesterday he claims he'll be repealing Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, under which Andrew Bolt was prosecuted last year:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbott

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Government is trying to bully its critics into submission by proposing tougher regulation of the media.

Mr Abbott has delivered a speech to the conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.

He says the Federal Government's failures have been fairly condemned by most media outlets and the general public.

Mr Abbott says he opposes the recommendations of the Finklestein Review into media and promised to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the section which conservative columnist Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under last year.

"Any prohibitions on inciting hatred against or intimidation of particular racial groups should be akin to the ancient common law offences of incitement and causing fear," he said.

"Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful. And this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Bolt. It's a matter of the right to free speech."

The article for which Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. There may have been some factual errors. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's others' right to say what you don't like, not just what you do.

It's the freedom to write badly and rudely. It's the freedom to be obnoxious and objectionable. Free speech is not bland speech. Often, it's pretty rough speech because people are entitled to be passionate when they are arguing for what they believe to be important and necessary. Speech that has to be inoffensive would be unerringly politically correct but it would not be free.

If it’s alright for David Marr, for instance, to upset conservative Christians, in his attempt to have them see the error of their ways, why is it not alright for Andrew Bolt to upset activist Aboriginals to the same end?

The rallying cry attributed to Voltaire, 'I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it', should have been invoked to defend Bolt, no less than it has been to justify robust speech from different points in the philosophical compass.
Tony Abbot

As much as I hate to agree with the Mad Monk on anything, I think this law is out of place in a democracy that cherishes freedom of speech. To me, the test of whether something is offensive is not strong enough. Bad ideas should be ridiculed and challenged, and offense is often a by-product of that.

So in Australia, should we be able to say what we like? At what level does it become unacceptable, and should it be a criminal or civil matter?

See if your views change when you take into account the exemptions in section 18D:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...5202/s18d.html

It is not hard to activate these exemptions - you just need to act reasonably and in good faith, and have genuine purposes or be fair and accurate in the expression of your views. It's not all that demanding to suggest that if you want the freedom to engage in offensive speech, you should take the time to be fair and accurate.

Of course, Abbott made no mention of this section, because then he would have to engage with the fact that Andrew Bolt could not engage the exemptions because his purposes were not genuine and the expression of his views was not accurate. I have not seen any media outlet refer to section 18D in any of the commentary on Abbott's speech, which tels you as much about the intellectual poverty of your average journalist as about anything else, I suggest.

Do we not have recourse for inaccurate/untrue reporting in the libel and defamation laws? Do they need to overlap here?

I'd much prefer to see the American Constitution's First Amendment be transplanted and slapped right at the top of our constitution.

Yet Andrew Bolt was against this kind of thing when it was talked about previously. He's such a fucking hypocrite as are most of the rightwing wankers who go feral when they get caught being massive arsehats, shouting freedom of speech, yet suing for defamation as soon as someone slanders them. They only want freedom of speech when it is convenient for them. They never defend their critics right to freedom of speech.

The problem with most people whinging about human rights is they always ignore the fact that all of your rights are predicated on the fact that you acting in some way doesn't impinge on other peoples rights, it's not just a carte blanche to do whatever you want to do.

In reality they aren't arguing for human rights they are asking for their right to do whatever the fuck they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I'd much prefer to see the American Constitution's First Amendment be transplanted and slapped right at the top of our constitution.

Yet Andrew Bolt was against this kind of thing when it was talked about previously. He's such a fucking hypocrite as are most of the rightwing wankers who go feral when they get caught being massive arsehats, shouting freedom of speech, yet suing for defamation as soon as someone slanders them. They only want freedom of speech when it is convenient for them. They never defend their critics right to freedom of speech.

I'd prefer the Canadian law where it prescribed that broadcasting licences will be revoked or not granted to broadcast stations that broadcast false or misleading news. This prevented a Fox-like channel being refused a licence last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_829473.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustinJ

I'd prefer the Canadian law where it prescribed that broadcasting licences will be revoked or not granted to broadcast stations that broadcast false or misleading news. This prevented a Fox-like channel being refused a licence last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_829473.html

Maybe a combo of both might be good.

It's a fine line between saying what you think and possibly upsetting other people, and just being abusive and/or lying

Bolt lied, his article was a complete fabrication and I think the people involved were entitled to kick up a stink over it. The actual underlying point of the article was quite good, but sadly Bolt is not a clever man so went with "making shit up to emphasis my point" over "making a clear and logical argument"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I'd much prefer to see the American Constitution's First Amendment be transplanted and slapped right at the top of our constitution.

Sadly that's a rather rocky road to head down. The ideal is a wonderful concept, but eventually it gets turned around and misused. Just as the founding fathers didn't intend the Second Amendment to mean that every murderous psycho who wants one should be allowed to have an assault rifle with which to create mayhem, so the authors of the First Amendment surely didn't envisage that the freedom to be critical of government would be turned around to mean the freedom to be a Nazi psycho and to promote racism. But that's been the consequence. Ask the six dead Sikhs in Wisconsin.

Lets say I want to publicly say that Andrew Bolt is an absolute ****.
Now let's say I want to call him a white ****.
Now an old, white, christian ****.
At what point does it become hate speech? When I introduced age, religion or ethnicity? If I wanted to say that he fucks animals, that would be a different story because I said something untrue (I assume anyway).

My point is - you can't classify something as mildly offensive so it's ok, but cross an invisible line and suddenly it's not ok.

^^ Unless you're Facebook.

I get the impression that Abbott is positioning himself on the hard right a-la his mentor John Howard. There were a number of occasions in the run up to the various elections that he won when John Howard would make some outrageous remark to do with race/immigration etc, either to deflect and therefore take the heat off the Coalition Government for some other vile thing that it was doing, or just to try and capture that One Nation element. The most famous of course was when the Kim Beazley and the ALP were riding high in the polls and then the gift of the Tampa came along and allowed John Howard to make his famous "we decide who comes to this country" speech and grab the imaginations of all of the dumbfucks out there who we force to vote every three years.

Julia Gillard might be massively unpopular, but there are so many people who are afraid of the phrase "Prime Minister Tony Abbott" that he's employing JWH's tried and trusted method of appealing to the right wing bigot element out there in an effort to bolster his popularity by clearly distancing himself from any of that nasty socialist political correctness. Of course he'll pay lip service to good race relations when it serves his purpose. He's never been one to avoid being two-faced if he can at all help it. As ever, the idiots out there who switch their votes every five minutes are too fucking stupid to realise when they're being led up the garden path.

Perti it's pretty simple in the end. Just look at any other issue and how we resolve it.

I have a right to listen to music I find enjoyable when I'm relaxing at home. My neighbours have a right to peace and quiet at home when they are relaxing if they so choose. Obviously if I play my music loud enough this will negatively affect their ability to enjoy peace and quiet.

It's too hard to adjudicate all disputes like this on an individual basis so we have set some ground rules whereby all people are allowed to generate a varying amount of noise on their property depending on the given time of day.

Is the system perfect? No. I might be within the legal level of noise only to still be loud enough to wake their newborn up. Due to sound dampening I may actually be able to have my music much louder than the legal level without them even hearing a noise. But we've set the middle ground and expect people to deal with the fact it often doesn't make complete sense.

Same principle applies with name calling. They've set a middle ground point so that there is a line. It doesn't always make sense but you know when you've crossed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honest Abe

Sadly that's a rather rocky road to head down. The ideal is a wonderful concept, but eventually it gets turned around and misused. Just as the founding fathers didn't intend the Second Amendment to mean that every murderous psycho who wants one should be allowed to have an assault rifle with which to create mayhem, so the authors of the First Amendment surely didn't envisage that the freedom to be critical of government would be turned around to mean the freedom to be a Nazi psycho and to promote racism. But that's been the consequence. Ask the six dead Sikhs in Wisconsin.

I agree but I would prefer to have freedom of speech, expression, association, and religious belief codified and enshrined constitutionally than to have what we have now - the implicit freedoms thereof. That doesn't mean that those freedoms wouldn't need to be, if so constitutionalised, balanced with other considerations if we were to legislate them into existence.

Having said that, as extreme as the forms of free speech take in America, I'd prefer what they have than what we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I agree but I would prefer to have freedom of speech, expression, association, and religious belief codified and enshrined constitutionally than to have what we have now - the implicit freedoms thereof. That doesn't mean that those freedoms wouldn't need to be, if so constitutionalised, balanced with other considerations if we were to legislate them into existence.

Having said that, as extreme as the forms of free speech take in America, I'd prefer what they have than what we do.

Freedom of speech is obviously a great idea, but it needs to be tempered and in fact it is in the US - just not enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Perti it's pretty simple in the end. Just look at any other issue and how we resolve it.

I have a right to listen to music I find enjoyable when I'm relaxing at home. My neighbours have a right to peace and quiet at home when they are relaxing if they so choose. Obviously if I play my music loud enough this will negatively affect their ability to enjoy peace and quiet.

It's too hard to adjudicate all disputes like this on an individual basis so we have set some ground rules whereby all people are allowed to generate a varying amount of noise on their property depending on the given time of day.

Is the system perfect? No. I might be within the legal level of noise only to still be loud enough to wake their newborn up. Due to sound dampening I may actually be able to have my music much louder than the legal level without them even hearing a noise. But we've set the middle ground and expect people to deal with the fact it often doesn't make complete sense.

Same principle applies with name calling. They've set a middle ground point so that there is a line. It doesn't always make sense but you know when you've crossed it.

I agree with the examples you've given, but the analogy is missing the fact that if I don't want to read Andrew Bolts shitty blog, or view the aboriginal meme page - I don't have to. The mere fact that those things exist doesn't infringe on any of my rights (although I would agree that television and radio are special cases, given that they're broadcast indiscriminately and done so on public licenses). You then come to another test entirely - when is something judged to be in the public forum?

It's too complex and subjective, and with that comes loopholes, concessions and abuse of the system. Why not just have a blanket acceptance that people are allowed to voice their opinions as long as those opinions neither infringe upon a persons rights unsolicited nor incites others to infringe upon those rights (ie incitement to violence)?

EDIT: or be untrue, obviously, but thats covered under the laws of slander/defamation/libel (I'm sure L-A will correct me)

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with things as they are now. People are protected from villification, which they should be. And people are able to express their views as long as they, to quote L-A, "act reasonably and in good faith, and have genuine purposes or be fair and accurate in the expression of your views".

This pseudo-problem only exists because people think it's OK to voice ill-informed prejudice. The real problem is that people are ignorant and don't care that they are. And they are exactly the people Abbott single-mindedly focusses on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with things as they are now.

Mostly agreed, although we could do with less censorship and protections against governments trying to introduce bullshit like the internet filter.

We need a film/tv/games classification system but the censor should have no (or very little) ability to outright ban anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PertiVanHelden

Do we not have recourse for inaccurate/untrue reporting in the libel and defamation laws? Do they need to overlap here?

The law of defamation serves a completely different purpose - it protects the reputations of individuals. The right of people to live free from racial vilifcation is as much a collective right as it is an indivdual right.

Oddly enough, the Racial Discrimiantion Act wasn't a problem for Abbott when it was being used to prevent vilification of Australian Jews:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...A/2000/38.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si.../2003/137.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...A/2007/55.html

It's a complex question and there is room for debate about where along the continuum between "maximum free speech/maximum freedom to offend" at one end and "complete right to be free of vilification/severe limits on free speech" at the other. You won't, however, get complexity (or for that matter, debate) from Abbott.

If you want to call yourself a participant in this debate, you need to be able to explain why section 18D isn't suffciently broad to protect genuine free speech, and you need to be able to explain why giving holocaust deniers like Frederick Toben a clear run (which is what happens if you abolish 18C) is a good policy outcome. Abbott hasn't the intellignece to do either and regrettably, it seems that there's no-one in the media able to do so, either.

A key issue is the particular group being targeted at any given point.

Saying anything even slightly negative about Aborigines results in outright condemnation, in this country they are untouchable. Usually the person making the comment will be called a racist, usually by people who don't understand what racism is.

So Bolt got taken to the cleaners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

A key issue is the particular group being targeted at any given point.

Saying anything even slightly negative about Aborigines results in outright condemnation, in this country they are untouchable. Usually the person making the comment will be called a racist, usually by people who don't understand what racism is.

So Bolt got taken to the cleaners.

Saying anything negative about any large group of people, most of whom you don't know and have never met, is inherently speaking from a position of ignorance. It goes without saying it's a gross generalisation, and you are inferring because some members of a race of people act in a particular way it follows all people of that race act that way. And that, quite obviously, is racist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by custaro

Mostly agreed, although we could do with less censorship and protections against governments trying to introduce bullshit like the internet filter.

We need a film/tv/games classification system but the censor should have no (or very little) ability to outright ban anything.

I completely agree, but I think that is a very different issue.

pretty impressed Dubz waited until his second post in this thread to start trolling

also, cmon dubz, there's no way our Indigenous cousins are more sensitive to racial issues than the Jews. Pick on someone else for a change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Saying anything negative about any large group of people, most of whom you don't know and have never met, is inherently speaking from a position of ignorance. It goes without saying it's a gross generalisation, and you are inferring because some members of a race of people act in a particular way it follows all people of that race act that way. And that, quite obviously, is racist.

So no-one should ever say anything about anything or anyone?

The whole "you aren't one of them so you can't comment" argument is bullshit.

You can make a comment without making an absolute generalist statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

pretty impressed Dubz waited until his second post in this thread to start trolling

also, cmon dubz, there's no way our Indigenous cousins are more sensitive to racial issues than the Jews. Pick on someone else for a change.

In this country I rarely hear the Jews up in arms. In England it's the muslims, in America the Jews/blacks.

I'm not picking on anyone, just going with the key topic of the moment.

The only problem I can think of in granting more freedom of speech is certain commentators directly or more likely indirectly inciting violence. If you've got passionate clerics inciting impressionable youths to 'action' or talkback shock jocks spurring on the white power crowd then that's definitely a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

In this country I rarely hear the Jews up in arms. In England it's the muslims, in America the Jews/blacks.

I'm not picking on anyone, just going with the key topic of the moment.

you obviously missed the cases LA posted above re: Australian Jews and their hate mongering against free speechists.

something something Jews control the media

PS in England its the English

Quote:

Originally Posted by legal-affairs

...
If you want to call yourself a participant in this debate, you need to be able to explain why section 18D isn't suffciently broad to protect genuine free speech, and you need to be able to explain why giving holocaust deniers like Frederick Toben a clear run (which is what happens if you abolish 18C) is a good policy outcome. Abbott hasn't the intellignece to do either and regrettably, it seems that there's no-one in the media able to do so, either.

found one media report discussing these 2 sections

Had to laugh at the North Koreans firing off a "We're offended" letter at Mx for calling them "Naughty Korea". HATE CRIME!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/olympics/of...808-23tpd.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

found one media report discussing these 2 sections

Cheers - no surprise to find GreenJ talking sense on this. By contrast, Chris Merritt's piece in the Oz yesterday was pretty close to peak muppet on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

So no-one should ever say anything about anything or anyone?

The whole "you aren't one of them so you can't comment" argument is bullshit.

You can make a comment without making an absolute generalist statement.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post?

It irks me when people seem to think we have some right to free speech. We don't.
We have a right to political communications, and that is as far as the constitution enshrines.

Past that, griggle hit the nail on the head. 'Rights' should only extend as far as they don't unreasonably infringe on the 'rights' of others.

The speech that the section in question targets is speech that inevitably attempts to publicly denigrate a group on the basis of race - a la Andrew Bolt and indigenous Australians - a practice that should be condemned.
You may not read him but tens of thousands of impressionable idiots do.

I personally can't think of a statement that would violate the section (taking into account the exceptions) but at the same time be morally defensible. If anyone else can, then maybe Abbot has a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my post?

No, I guess I just don't understand your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

No, I guess I just don't understand your point.

"So no-one should ever say anything about anything or anyone?"

No one is saying you can't say anything about anything or anyone. Say what you want, but if you are saying it publicly and it denegrates a group of people you'd better make sure it's accurate and not just a blind statement of ignorant prejudice. fact is, if you are making sweeping statements, chances are it's exactly that.

For example, if I said all poms are fuckwits, I'd simply be wrong, even though I know poms who are fuckwits.

"The whole "you aren't one of them so you can't comment" argument is bullshit."

It is bullshit, and nothing in the legislation says that.

One of the biggest problems is that people will say things like "that person behaves badly because he is aboriginal". Well you simply can't say that. If one indigenous Australian doesn't act that way your argument is shot down, then and there, on the basis of simple logic. It's proven wrong. And you can't possibly know all indigenous Australians so you can't possibly know that. And because that is actually the case that it is wrong, you should never say it. It's simply wrong, it shows ignorance on the part of the person saying it and it villifies an entire race of people.

So, you can say there are lebanese criminal families in Sydney, because it's true, it's a fact. You can't say all Lebanese are criminals because it's not true. Lebanese are not racially disposed to crime.

A lot of the adverse social problems in the indigenous community are caused by low education levels, poverty and social exclusion. It's not because of some innate indigenous genetic flaw, it's because of 200 years of social exclusion and discrimination, and a lack of acceptance by white Australians that there is more than one valid mode of living. Every time statement like "aboriginals are all losers" is made, it perpetuates and reinforces discrimination. If people are too ignorant or prejudiced to bother finding out about the diversity and richness of indigenous culture, then indigenous people need the protection that this legislation affords, in order for them to grow out of some the social problems they now experience.

I really think we should start teaching logic to people at around year 8 rather than waiting till university.

Most of the population aren't equipped to even realise why an argument they have is illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

even though I know poms who are fuckwits.

This is clearly a lie

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

"So no-one should ever say anything about anything or anyone?"

No one is saying you can't say anything about anything or anyone. Say what you want, but if you are saying it publicly and it denegrates a group of people you'd better make sure it's accurate and not just a blind statement of ignorant prejudice. fact is, if you are making sweeping statements, chances are it's exactly that.

For example, if I said all poms are fuckwits, I'd simply be wrong, even though I know poms who are fuckwits.

"The whole "you aren't one of them so you can't comment" argument is bullshit."

It is bullshit, and nothing in the legislation says that.

One of the biggest problems is that people will say things like "that person behaves badly because he is aboriginal". Well you simply can't say that. If one indigenous Australian doesn't act that way your argument is shot down, then and there, on the basis of simple logic. It's proven wrong. And you can't possibly know all indigenous Australians so you can't possibly know that. And because that is actually the case that it is wrong, you should never say it. It's simply wrong, it shows ignorance on the part of the person saying it and it villifies an entire race of people.

So, you can say there are lebanese criminal families in Sydney, because it's true, it's a fact. You can't say all Lebanese are criminals because it's not true. Lebanese are not racially disposed to crime.

A lot of the adverse social problems in the indigenous community are caused by low education levels, poverty and social exclusion. It's not because of some innate indigenous genetic flaw, it's because of 200 years of social exclusion and discrimination, and a lack of acceptance by white Australians that there is more than one valid mode of living. Every time statement like "aboriginals are all losers" is made, it perpetuates and reinforces discrimination. If people are too ignorant or prejudiced to bother finding out about the diversity and richness of indigenous culture, then indigenous people need the protection that this legislation affords, in order for them to grow out of some the social problems they now experience.

Ah see this is why the interwebs is not good for arguing. We could have cleared this up easily if we were speaking in person.

I meant that to see any negative about Aborigines is bad. You took that to mean me saying something like "All aborigines are bad people"

For example I wrote on my Facebook about the chap at teh Olympics wearing an Aboriginal t-shirt and said "another Aborigine behaving badly and getting away with it" because under the IOC rules he should have been kicked out but wasn't.

But people were going mental saying I was racist, when I was talking about one person, not all the Aborigines in the world.

So I'd never say "all Aborigines are bad" but I can make comments about my perceptions of some of them without being inherently racist.

Just never say the word "all" and you're fine. Then it's not a sweeping generalisation.

Reading "another Aborigine behaving badly and getting away with it" still comes across as racist dude. I'm not saying you are, but if that's the only thing I read from you, I'd pretty much consider what you wrote racist and that you yourself are racist.

You could argue your case, but if that's the only thing people read from you while not knowing you personally, they will likely think you are racist imo. You may know what you mean when you write that but to someone unfamiliar to your thought processes you will sound racist.

You'd be doing yourself a favour by writing, "Damien Hooper behaves badly and gets away with it," or something if you want your intent to be clear.

And I think saying behaving badly is a bit strong, it kinda suggests something different than wearing a t-shirt with the aboriginal flag on it.

All just my opinion of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

"So no-one should ever say anything about anything or anyone?"

No one is saying you can't say anything about anything or anyone. Say what you want, but if you are saying it publicly and it denegrates a group of people you'd better make sure it's accurate and not just a blind statement of ignorant prejudice. fact is, if you are making sweeping statements, chances are it's exactly that.

For example, if I said all poms are fuckwits, I'd simply be wrong, even though I know poms who are fuckwits.

"The whole "you aren't one of them so you can't comment" argument is bullshit."

It is bullshit, and nothing in the legislation says that.

One of the biggest problems is that people will say things like "that person behaves badly because he is aboriginal". Well you simply can't say that. If one indigenous Australian doesn't act that way your argument is shot down, then and there, on the basis of simple logic. It's proven wrong. And you can't possibly know all indigenous Australians so you can't possibly know that. And because that is actually the case that it is wrong, you should never say it. It's simply wrong, it shows ignorance on the part of the person saying it and it villifies an entire race of people.

So, you can say there are lebanese criminal families in Sydney, because it's true, it's a fact. You can't say all Lebanese are criminals because it's not true. Lebanese are not racially disposed to crime.

A lot of the adverse social problems in the indigenous community are caused by low education levels, poverty and social exclusion. It's not because of some innate indigenous genetic flaw, it's because of 200 years of social exclusion and discrimination, and a lack of acceptance by white Australians that there is more than one valid mode of living. Every time statement like "aboriginals are all losers" is made, it perpetuates and reinforces discrimination. If people are too ignorant or prejudiced to bother finding out about the diversity and richness of indigenous culture, then indigenous people need the protection that this legislation affords, in order for them to grow out of some the social problems they now experience.

Marry me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Reading "another Aborigine behaving badly and getting away with it" still comes across as racist dude. I'm not saying you are, but if that's the only thing I read from you, I'd pretty much consider what you wrote racist and that you yourself are racist.

You could argue your case, but if that's the only thing people read from you while not knowing you personally, they will likely think you are racist imo. You may know what you mean when you write that but to someone unfamiliar to your thought processes you will sound racist.

You'd be doing yourself a favour by writing, "Damien Hooper behaves badly and gets away with it," or something if you want your intent to be clear.

And I think saying behaving badly is a bit strong, it kinda suggests something different than wearing a t-shirt with the aboriginal flag on it.

All just my opinion of course.

Well it feels like they're allowed to behave badly and they get a free pass because of their race.

But my point was that he broke the rules and wasn't punished, and I felt it was because of his race. And I made that very clear in my status.

But still people go "oh you're racist!" and I thought "what cos I commented on one person??"

Quote:

Originally Posted by smorchika

Marry me?

Well you have pretty good taste in music, so... yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

Well it feels like they're allowed to behave badly and they get a free pass because of their race.

But my point was that he broke the rules and wasn't punished, and I felt it was because of his race. And I made that very clear in my status.

But still people go "oh you're racist!" and I thought "what cos I commented on one person??"

C'mon dude: Whitey McWhite gets a pretty good chance at things too. Look at Nick D'Arcy and Kendrick Monk. They did far worse things yet were still allowed to compete at the games and weren't sent home at the end of their swim meets like we were told they would be.

It's not like he went on a rampage like the Aussie rower: Hooper wore a t-shirt with an aboriginal flag on it. Pretty fucking tame. He was told not to do it again and he didn't.

You're making out like he was being drunk on a London corner shouting racial epithets.

And when you say "they're" and "they" it sounds pretty Andrew Boltish: it sounds like you are generalising for all aborigines. Just sayin'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Well you have pretty good taste in music, so... yes.

K-pop is good music?

J/J GPCP Kpop crew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

K-pop is good music?

J/J GPCP Kpop crew.

I was thinking more the Labryinth artists

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I was thinking more the Labryinth artists

You remind me of the babe!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

C'mon dude: Whitey McWhite gets a pretty good chance at things too. Look at Nick D'Arcy and Kendrick Monk. They did far worse things yet were still allowed to compete at the games and weren't sent home at the end of their swim meets like we were told they would be.

It's not like he went on a rampage like the Aussie rower: Hooper wore a t-shirt with an aboriginal flag on it. Pretty fucking tame. He was told not to do it again and he didn't.

You're making out like he was being drunk on a London corner shouting racial epithets.

And when you say "they're" and "they" it sounds pretty Andrew Boltish: it sounds like you are generalising for all aborigines. Just sayin'.

I am generalising for all Aborigines in this instance, I think they all, on the whole, get away with bad behaviour more than the rest of us.

I didn't realise D'Arcy and Monk weren't sent home like was announced, that was poor. But they only did stupid stuff, they didn't actually break the IOC rules like Hooper.

AS for D'Arcy being allowed to compete, sadly Australia couldn't keep him out despite his appalling behaviour.

By "get away with more bad behaviour" do you mean "They are more likely to have had problems with the law, more likely to have been imprisoned and more likely to die in custody than any other group in Australia?"

If so I think we are on the same page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

You remind me of the babe!

The babe with the power

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubz

I am generalising for all Aborigines in this instance, I think they all, on the whole, get away with bad behaviour more than the rest of us.

I didn't realise D'Arcy and Monk weren't sent home like was announced, that was poor. But they only did stupid stuff, they didn't actually break the IOC rules like Hooper.

AS for D'Arcy being allowed to compete, sadly Australia couldn't keep him out despite his appalling behaviour.

D'Arcy smashes a guys face in with his forearm, pleads bankruptcy, avoids paying over $100k in civil damages, gets to compete at the Olympics.

Monk falls of his skateboard, tries to hide this by making a spurious and nuisance claim that he was the victim of a hit and run, competes at the Olympics.

Hooper wears a t-shirt with the aboriginal flag on it while entering the ring at the Olympics and somehow he's, and Aborigines are, getting away with bad behaviour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

The babe with the power

The power of voodoo?