Christchurch terror attack

[momo]

4 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I reserve the right to trash Islam, just as I trash Christianity and all the other superstitions. But I hold no ill-will to the individuals who adhere to them, let alone wish them harm. 

It's the same shit talk the terrorists use as an excuse to kill Muslims.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I reserve the right to trash Islam, just as I trash Christianity and all the other superstitions. But I hold no ill-will to the individuals who adhere to them, let alone wish them harm. 

35 minutes ago, momo said:

It's the same shit talk the terrorists use as an excuse to kill Muslims.

The thing with "trashing" a belief system or any religion is that adherents/followers/worshippers of that belief system or religion feel like it is them that is being trashed, even if that's not the intent. And the consequence is less tolerance, not more, of ordinary peaceful people of faith or no faith. I'm guilty, by the way. I'm not having a dig. I don't believe in higher powers or religions or the existence of Gods or spaghetti monsters or space aliens or anything else without evidence. But that's me.

Not believing, is fine, I think, but actively seeking to trash religions and the people who adhere to them is sticky ground, given the sincere devotion of followers.

If some bell end in the name of religion - any of them - does something horrific, then you can't wholly say it's nothing to do with religion, because it clearly is, but it still isn't the religion that's to blame, it's the bell end (and accomplices). IF someone does something wonderful in the name of religion, kind of the same applies - it's the humans doing the good thing, not any kind of innate superiority of one belief system over another. AFAIK, most if not all religions "tell" their followers to do good things, and if or where they tell them to do bad things, or the followers interpret their religion as telling them to do bad things, then the humans ought to be smart enough to know that the bad thing is wrong, and not do it, to revisit their interpretation. There's no religion on earth that tells its followers to bomb, machine gun and torture.

[mjmooney]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

The thing with "trashing" a belief system or any religion is that adherents/followers/worshippers of that belief system or religion feel like it is them that is being trashed, even if that's not the intent. And the consequence is less tolerance, not more, of ordinary peaceful people of faith or no faith. I'm guilty, by the way. I'm not having a dig. I don't believe in higher powers or religions or the existence of Gods or spaghetti monsters or space aliens or anything else without evidence. But that's me.

Not believing, is fine, I think, but actively seeking to trash religions and the people who adhere to them is sticky ground, given the sincere devotion of followers.

If some bell end in the name of religion - any of them - does something horrific, then you can't wholly say it's nothing to do with religion, because it clearly is, but it still isn't the religion that's to blame, it's the bell end (and accomplices). IF someone does something wonderful in the name of religion, kind of the same applies - it's the humans doing the good thing, not any kind of innate superiority of one belief system over another. AFAIK, most if not all religions "tell" their followers to do good things, and if or where they tell them to do bad things, or the followers interpret their religion as telling them to do bad things, then the humans ought to be smart enough to know that the bad thing is wrong, and not do it, to revisit their interpretation. There's no religion on earth that tells its followers to bomb, machine gun and torture.

Yes, you're right of course. When I said 'trash', I didn't mean seek people out, abuse them, etc. I just meant that, should I get into a debate with a believer, I will not disguise the fact that I consider such belief, well, frankly risible. My few godbotherer friends have learnt that it's best to avoid the subject... 

[chrisp65]

There are, of course, people on this very board that claim to be 'aggressively' against religion. Which would be bad enough, but then they also know via their wifi or some such means  who's religious and who's not.

Then spout stuff about sky fairies.

It's quite a tricky subject. So it's probably best to deal with the individual and their actions, rather than attempting mass judgmental mind reading.

That goes for all sides. 

[peterms]

3 hours ago, momo said:

It's the same shit talk the terrorists use as an excuse to kill Muslims.

It's not, or not meant to be.  It's a poor choice of words, because "trashing" has no clear and agreed meaning.  I think what is meant is disagreeing fundamentally with the claims of a rsligion, while respecting the right of people to hold a belief and act in pursuit of it, as long as it doesn't harm others or curtail their rights.  At least that's my interpretation.

[KenjiOgiwara]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The thing with "trashing" a belief system or any religion is that adherents/followers/worshippers of that belief system or religion feel like it is them that is being trashed, even if that's not the intent.

I don't approve of the word trashing, but that in general doesn't bother me. I have no problems with people of any religion, but you can't not be afraid to have public debate, because some people will seek to be victims. As an example I have opinions of Israel that isn't flattering for the nation, but I have no problems with jews. But I can guarantee you thousand and thousand of jews would call me anti-semite. 

If you won't debate, criticize, promote and offer change cause you are afraid someone will feel stigmatized, how on earth are we supposed to move on? To me this is the very foundation of our modern society.  Now if you mean by trash, to put down a religion for no other reason that hurt someone's feelings, then that's another thing entirely, but even then I think it's not black and white. Tolerance is molto importante, but feeling insulted or stigmatized is okey. It doesn't mean you can set boundaries to free speech or free thinking. Obviously there's laws against hate speech and such, but I think there's nuances here, and we can't get defensive over everything in life we don't approve of. Free thinking and ability to have an argument goes a long way. I am sorry but this has the feel of debates in Norway about PC and when people tell me what I can say, not say, think and not think, well it bothers me. The world in general needs 1) thicker skin 2) read more than one book. 

[VILLAMARV]

On 15/03/2019 at 09:01, Rodders said:

 

from an elected official. Jesus Christ, that is insane

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/111340321/australia-senator-egged-after-christchurch-terror-attack-comments

Quote

Queensland senator Fraser Anning struck out twice with an open hand at a teenager who smashed an egg on the back of his head during a media conference at a right-wing rally in Melbourne on Saturday.

The senator sparked outrage for blaming Muslim immigration for the shootings at a Christchurch mosque on Friday that killed 49 people.  As supporters gathered around the reporters to hear Anning interviewed by The Age and television news members, a young man standing behind him smashed an egg on the back of the senator's head. Anning turned and struck at the 17-year-old in the head with an open left hand, then lashed out again with his left hand towards the teenager's head. A slew of Anning's supporters gang-tackled the teenager and pinned him to the floor. The teen was held on the ground for an extended period of time, until journalists appealed to the Anning supporters to allow the person to get back on his feet. Far-right activist Neil Erikson, who was involved in the gang-tackle, shouted at the organisers to remove reporters.

"Get the journalist out of here... If you don't like, get out," he said.

Police are investigating the incident and Anning's retaliation. The teenager has been released without charge pending further investigations. Anning earlier delivered an impromptu speech to about 100 supporters at Moorabbin in Melbourne's south-east, in which he doubled down on his comments blaming Muslim immigration for Friday's Christchurch shooting. When Anning also said many of his supporters in his home state of Queensland were under 35, one person from the crowd noted that the alleged Christchurch shooter was aged 28.

"It's the younger generation taking up the fight", said the supporter.

Anning responded: "well he's obviously a little on the crazy side, but yeah."

A fundraising page has been set up for donations to cover the teen's legal fees and purchase "more eggs", the ABC reported.

 

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

There's no religion on earth that tells its followers to bomb, machine gun and torture.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Not believing, is fine, I think, but actively seeking to trash religions and the people who adhere to them is sticky ground, given the sincere devotion of followers.

And now you have Mike having to reply with:

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Yes, you're right of course. When I said 'trash', I didn't mean seek people out, abuse them, etc.

even after he had already said:

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I hold no ill-will to the individuals who adhere to them, let alone wish them harm.

The problem is being unable to separate people from the ideas they hold.

If people are so wedded to their ideologies or religions that they can only see themselves in those terms then it is their own problem if they see a criticism of that idea as something personal.

That does go for adherents to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Capitalism, Socialism, &c.

Incitement to hatred and physical retribution towards those holding particular beliefs/ideologies should obviously not be confused with criticism of the ideas held (nor be allowed to be conflated with such).

Edited March 16, 2019 by snowychap

[peterms]

19 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/111340321/australia-senator-egged-after-christchurch-terror-attack-comments

 

This is possibly a better angle of the teenager's assault on the honourable gentleman.

 

[VILLAMARV]

On 15/03/2019 at 18:58, sharkyvilla said:

That's interesting, compared to Aussies I found Kiwis to be much more generous and laid-back, and historically they seemed to get on with Maoris better than the Aussies have the aboriginals.  I had one particularly unpleasant racist taxi driver in Sydney that may have skewed my thinking, and the terrorist here was Australian anyway.  Ultimately it's hard to stop an angry murderous bastard doing this kind of thing, and it's not restricted to any particular nation, culture or religion.

 

17 hours ago, MrDuck said:

I've lived and worked in NZ and Australia for the last twenty years, and the countries are like chalk and cheese when it comes to racism. NZ has it's problems with race just like anywhere, but it has a relatively benign media, a progressive outlook on just about everything and a mostly rational government. The Maori have a lot of power which they have fought hard for, and while there are still issues, it's generally a very peaceful harmonious society.

Australia on the other hand - while being full of some lovely people - has a government full of racist dog-whistlers and actual dumb-**** nazis, is still only one step away from genocidal treatment of the indigenous people, and has a media predominantly run by Murdoch and his white-supremacist cronies.Sadly it came as no surprise at all to discover the shooter in Christchurch was an Aussie. Even our PM has been pushing his own anti-muslim agenda very publicly for a while now.

Perhaps I should clarify a little. I wasn't having a pop at NZ. I'd move there in a heartbeat if they'd have me. But earlier in the thread there were a few comments about people being 'surprised it's in NZ' and that sort of thing. I took that to suggest that posters felt there are civilised pockets of humanity, divided across border lines on a map, where racial hatred was simply not an issue. Given the context it seemed an odd way of looking at things to me. Maybe in retrospect it may have been an ill timed attempt at sharing my, albeit anecdotal, experience of travelling around both Islands and coming across some noticeable division along the lines of ethnicity.

Having not been to Australia I can't use it as a point of reference I'm afraid, but while we're at it, when did 'not being as bad as Australia' start being used as some sort of barometer of racism? Surely we only have to look as far as the 'irregular migrant processing centres' (Sadly I feel people will get used to that sort of phrase and variants over the coming years) on Nauru and Manus, or at it's historical treatment of the indigenous people to see what Australia thinks of it's fellow man. Perhaps we should set/use a higher standard?

To my way of thinking, The idea that 'Australia bad / New Zealand ok' (yes it's an amazingly oversimplified para-phrase) is part of the problem when it comes to the entrenchment of divisive thought. It's built on our individual perceptions which may not necessarily reflect the reality. For example, while we may perceive NZ to be an Antipodean Bastian of multiculturalism, and maybe they are 'top' in the sample by whatever measurement technique we could invent. A Quick glance at the OECD Better Life Index for instance sees NZ top the lists on health, and is top 3 in the 'community' category. So all good, nothing to see here then.

Here though, some extracts I've taken from a fairly recent paper from Victoria University, Wellington - Indicators of Inequality for Māori and Pacific People (Lisa Marriott and Dalice Sim August 2014) may find some trends within those health figures that show a different side of things. (It's really dry and long I know - what can I say it's massively edited each paragraph from a different section and all that)

Quote

The patterns of inequality in New Zealand are well-established. Regardless of whether income or wealth are used as measures of inequality, New Zealand scores around the average of OECD countries, with similar levels of inequality to Australia, Japan and Canada

Inequality captures the distribution of resources across society. While this is an important measure, it is also important to investigate differences in distributions among different ethnic groups. If inequality is equally represented among different ethnic groups, we would expect to find a similar proportion of each ethnic group under each measure. To the extent that a different ethnic groups has a different representation in a social indicator, this suggests greater or lesser inequality among that ethnic group. This study focuses on the differences in 21 social indicators that capture a range of inequality measures across three ethnic groups in New Zealand: Europeans, Māori and Pacific people. The aim of the study is to report on differences found among these three ethnic groups for a range of inequality measures.

Historically, on average, general outcomes for Māori and Pacific people have been less positive than those for the European population. Perry (2013b:124) reports that Māori and Pacific ethnic groups typically have poverty rates that are around double those of the European/Pakeha ethnic group, regardless of the measure used. Using the measure of less than 60 per cent of the median income, 23 per cent of Māori, 22 per cent of Pacific people, and 11 per cent of European/Pakeha people had household incomes below this threshold

Research typically shows health outcomes for Māori people as poorer than other population groupings. For example, research by Bramley, Hebert, Tuzzio and Chassin (2005) reports on differences in health outcomes between the numerically dominant population group and the indigenous population in the United States (Europeans and American Indians/Alaska Natives) and New Zealand (Europeans and Māori). In both countries poorer health outcomes are reported among the minority populations. However, in almost every health status indicator assessed in the study, disparities were more pronounced for Māori people than for American Indians/Alaska Natives, despite significant gains in the health measures investigated over recent decades

Māori males could expect to live 8.2 years less than non-Māori males and Māori females could expect to live 8.7 years less than non-Māori females in 2000-02. In 2010-2012, the gaps in life expectancy have reduced slightly to show a gap of 7.4 years for males and 7.2 years for females.

The gaps in obesity between Māori and the general population, and Pacific people and the general population, both show increases over the time period investigated...............The relative gap with the European population has increased 33.6 per cent for Māori and 4.2 per cent for Pacific people.

The male Māori suicide rate is higher than the male non-Māori suicide rate with a rate of 25.5 and 23.9 suicides per 100,000 of population in 2000 and 2010, respectively...................The gap in suicide rates has increased between the two groups over the 10-year period investigated: Māori male suicides have increased by 1.8 per 100,000 of population (26.9 per cent) while Māori female suicides have increased by 3.5 per 100,000 of population.

While the rates for Māori and Pacific people in 2010 are still higher than the non-Māori; non-Pacific population, the gap is less pronounced than 10 years earlier

Both the Māori and Pacific people indicators showed decreases of over 30 per cent in the gap between early childhood education of European and Māori, and European and Pacific people.

For both Māori and Pacific people, the gap with the European unemployment rate increased from December 2003 to December 2012.

The employment rate for both Māori and Pacific people decreased significantly more than the employment rate for Europeans over this time, with a larger decrease for Pacific people than for Māoriat 49 per cent for Pacific people and 14 per cent for Māori.

Both Māori and Pacific people have significantly lower median weekly earnings in both 2003 and 2013. In addition, for each ethnicity, the change from 2003 to 2012 is statistically significant. However, for both Māori people and Pacific people the difference from the European ethnic group does not change significantly from 2003 to 2013.

Receipt of welfare benefits has decreased for the non-Māori, non-Pacific people; and Pacific people. However, this indicator shows an increase for Māori people. Despite the improvement for Pacific people, the gap is increasing between non-Māori, non-Pacific people and Pacific people. This gap is also increasing for Māori people.

The gap in median weekly income for both Māori and Pacific people has increased over the ten-year period examined: the gap has increased by $68 for Māori (103 per cent) and $160 for Pacific people (203 per cent).

The gap in representation in the lowest income quintile between European and Māori has increased 3.2 percentage points (86.5 per cent), while the gap in representation between European and Pacific people has increased 4.4 percentage points (45.4 per cent).

While 86 per cent of the European population had access to the internet at home in 2012, only 68 per cent of Māori people and 65 per cent of Pacific people had internet access in the home. The datasets used suggest that the gaps for both ethnicities had increased over the 11 year period investigated. In 2001, the gap between Europeans and Māori was 8 percentage points. This had increased to 18 percentage points by 2012, an increase of 125 per cent.

Of all the health indicators, only infant mortality showed a considerable improvement for Māori and Pacific people. While the gaps between non-Māori and Māori of life expectancy at birth improved slightly, the gaps remain considerable at over seven years for both males and females. The indicators for cigarette smoking and obesity show increasing gaps between Europeans and Māori, and Europeans and Pacific People. The gaps in suicide rates have also increased between Māori and non-Māori.

The median weekly income shows greater increases for Europeans as compared to Pacific people and Māori. The gap in median weekly income for Māori over the 10-year period has increased by 103 per cent. However, the increase in the gap for Pacific people is 203 per cent..........................Large gaps remain between European and Māori, and European and Pacific people, under both housing measures.

Gaps between European household access to the internet, and those of Pacific people and Māori have both increased over the 11-year period examined.

However, the OECD (2008) note that the relatively modest increase in inequality over the previous 20 years ‘hides a larger underlying trend’, which is the practice in developed countries to tax more and spend more to offset the movement towards higher inequality.

The OECD (2008, 2013) suggest that the labour market should be the first place that governments look towards to address rising inequality: ‘the only sustainable way to reduce inequality is to stop the underlying widening of wages and income from capital. In particular, we have to make sure that people are capable of being in employment and earning wages that keep them and their families out of poverty’.

The event of Māori and Pacific people being disproportionately poorly represented in social indicators is not a new trend. Despite considerable attention paid to the issue, the data outlined in this research indicates that New Zealand’s strategy to address inequality as it relates to Māori and Pacific people has not been successful. Some indicators have improved, but the majority have not. .......................During the course of this research, we found no multi-agency attempts to monitor progress of these social measures. Moreover, the difficulty experienced in obtaining comparable data suggests that, in some cases, data is no longer captured on some of the original measures

The majority of the indicators investigated in this study show worsening outcomes for Māori and Pacific people. Of those indicators where closing gaps are visible, in many cases, large gaps still remain.

https://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacl/centres-and-chairs/cpf/publications/working-papers/WP09_2014_Indicators-of-Inequality.pdf

I know that's a lot of guff about inequality, not necessarily racism directly and that many of the indicators used are subject to social and cultural issues outside of any argument about the prevalence of racism but it paints the picture of some of the divisions in NZ to being wider than that in the US between the Settlers and the Native Americans. Would we instinctively perceive NZ to be 'worse' than the US on issues of race? Especially when it comes to the provision of healthcare.

This may be a few years old (2012) and was just the thing that matched my search terms best I suppose and appeared at the top of a list - but highlights my original point well I think

Quote

Racial prejudice 'still entrenched in NZ'

New Zealand has made "solid progress" in improving race relations in the past five years but still suffers from continuing racial prejudice and inequality, the race relations commissioner says.

The Human Rights Commission's annual review of race relations, published today, notes several achievements, including the introduction of a new school curriculum emphasising the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, and a wider appreciation for the increasing religious diversity in New Zealand. But it also highlights problems such as the continuing discrimination and harassment experienced by Asian New Zealanders and the continuing disadvantage experienced by Maori and Pacific people.

Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres said that, in the future, no single ethnic group was likely to make up a majority of the population. In Auckland and Northland, nearly 60 per cent of school pupils were non-European and nearly 40 per cent in the central North Island were Maori. Mr de Bres, who made headlines after Waitangi Day when he criticised a "lack of generosity towards deprived Maori" among some Pakeha, said three barriers continued to undermine positive race relations. The first, racial prejudice, involved entrenched views and negative attitudes towards migrants, refugees, the Treaty and indigenous rights.

"These prejudices are still far too prevalent, and compromise efforts to address race relation issues."

Racial inequality, where members of ethnic groups experienced social, economic or political disadvantage compared to others, was also a huge problem.

"The inequalities are not only significant but also entrenched."

Minority ethnic groups being excluded from decision-making, employment and by the media was the third issue, and more support and representation in government was needed, Mr de Bres said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6541242/Racial-prejudice-still-entrenched-in-NZ

Perhaps what he was talking about are shown in these types of figures from their health dept that highlight some rather worrying things with regards to underlying racial discrimination in the two years following that statement.

Quote

‘Racial discrimination’ refers to experience of ethnically motivated personal attack (physical or verbal) and experience of unfair treatment on the basis of ethnicity in any of three situations: health care, housing or work.

Māori adults were more than 1.5 times as likely as non-Māori adults to have experienced any ethnically motivated personal (physical or verbal) attack. The disparity was greater for rates of experience of physical attack: Māori adults were more than twice as likely as non-Māori adults to have experienced physical attack

Māori adults were almost 3 times as likely as non-Māori adults to have experienced any unfair treatment on the basis of ethnicity. The disparity was greater for rates of experience of unfair treatment in housing among females: Māori females were more than 7 times as likely as non-Māori females to have experienced unfair treatment in renting or buying houses because of ethnicity

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/populations/maori-health/tatau-kahukura-maori-health-statistics/nga-awe-o-te-hauora-socioeconomic-determinants-health/racial-discrimination

Quote

Māori adults were more likely than non-Māori adults to suffer adverse health effects as the victims of violence. Māori adults were more than 2.5 times as likely as non-Māori to die from assault and homicide . The disparity was greater for males: the Māori male rate was nearly 4 times as high as that of non-Māori males.

Māori rates of hospitalisation as the result of assault or attempted homicide were also significantly higher than those for non-Māori. The disparity was greater for females: the Māori female rate was nearly 6 times as high as that of non-Māori females

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/populations/maori-health/tatau-kahukura-maori-health-statistics/nga-mana-hauora-tutohu-health-status-indicators/interpersonal-violence

Anyway, this became a larger post than intended. And as I said, not knocking NZ, just trying to add some context of understanding to something far away. As others have said, this is something that needs taking seriously but I fear truths hiding behind a false premise if that's a good way of putting it.

This utter moron who decided to kill people in Christchurch has committed an appalling crime in a most barbaric way. What more can we do at this point but look on in shock and disgust?

Just we shouldn't, in the anger and confusion, lose sight of what's really happening. And I'm not suggesting I can see that. But between us we can usually reach a pretty close consensus and that's a principle that could well be applicable here.

[peterms]

0

[momo]

3 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I don't approve of the word trashing, but that in general doesn't bother me. I have no problems with people of any religion, but you can't not be afraid to have public debate, because some people will seek to be victims. As an example I have opinions of Israel that isn't flattering for the nation, but I have no problems with jews. But I can guarantee you thousand and thousand of jews would call me anti-semite. 

If you won't debate, criticize, promote and offer change cause you are afraid someone will feel stigmatized, how on earth are we supposed to move on? To me this is the very foundation of our modern society.  Now if you mean by trash, to put down a religion for no other reason that hurt someone's feelings, then that's another thing entirely, but even then I think it's not black and white. Tolerance is molto importante, but feeling insulted or stigmatized is okey. It doesn't mean you can set boundaries to free speech or free thinking. Obviously there's laws against hate speech and such, but I think there's nuances here, and we can't get defensive over everything in life we don't approve of. Free thinking and ability to have an argument goes a long way. I am sorry but this has the feel of debates in Norway about PC and when people tell me what I can say, not say, think and not think, well it bothers me. The world in general needs 1) thicker skin 2) read more than one book. 

Since you said Norway, you have heard the term sneak-Islamization which is used by your finance minister over and over again for no obvious reason than her being an islamophobe and racist. Yet, will anybody in your country call her a racist? No? Why is that? Other vile anti-Muslim statements by british politicians, australian politicians, american politicians, italian politicians, hungrian politicians and other european politicians are not PC. And then to compare israeli apartheid politics to general Islam and Muslims is really out of place. You should try to compare islamophobia with european antisemitism. Then you will get the idea of how it is to be a Muslim in this toxic environment.

[El Zen]

40 minutes ago, momo said:

Since you said Norway, you have heard the term sneak-Islamization which is used by your finance minister over and over again for no obvious reason than her being an islamophobe and racist. Yet, will anybody in your country call her a racist? No? 

Yes.

[A'Villan]

Wrote to my friend this morning asking what I could do to support the Muslim community. It's so far beyond what happened in NZ.

I have hundreds of Muslim friends and acquaintances and while I don't share their beliefs, we have wonderful discussions and they are beautiful people.

I'm writing a letter and attending a mosque today. The line has been crossed so many times it's worn out of existence. I won't trade in humanity for patriotism.

[A'Villan]

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, a senator in Australia has come out and said that allowing Muslims to immigrate is the cause of the attack.

He also mentioned that while they are the victims today, Muslims are usually the perpetrators. His integrity doesn't end there..

He was egged by a teenager after his comments and the senator then punched this teenager twice in the face and his men then proceeded to headlock the teen and ground him.

I don't want to give this guy a greater platform, but he also made a 'final solution' speech on immigration. His name is Anning.

But today is not about Anning and neither is our future.

[Kiwivillan]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, a senator in Australia has come out and said that allowing Muslims to immigrate is the cause of the attack.

He also mentioned that while they are the victims today, Muslims are usually the perpetrators. His integrity doesn't end there..

He was egged by a teenager after his comments and the senator then punched this teenager twice in the face and his men then proceeded to headlock the teen and ground him.

I don't want to give this guy a greater platform, but he also made a 'final solution' speech on immigration. His name is Anning.

But today is not about Anning and neither is our future.

 Eggboy is new Aussie hero

Edited March 17, 2019 by Kiwivillan

[MrDuck]

8 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

 

Having not been to Australia I can't use it as a point of reference I'm afraid, but while we're at it, when did 'not being as bad as Australia' start being used as some sort of barometer of racism? Surely we only have to look as far as the 'irregular migrant processing centres' (Sadly I feel people will get used to that sort of phrase and variants over the coming years) on Nauru and Manus, or at it's historical treatment of the indigenous people to see what Australia thinks of it's fellow man. Perhaps we should set/use a higher standard?

 

Great point, well made!

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, A'Villan said:

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, a senator in Australia has come out and said that allowing Muslims to immigrate is the cause of the attack.

He also mentioned that while they are the victims today, Muslims are usually the perpetrators. His integrity doesn't end there..

He was egged by a teenager after his comments and the senator then punched this teenager twice in the face and his men then proceeded to headlock the teen and ground him.

I don't want to give this guy a greater platform, but he also made a 'final solution' speech on immigration. His name is Anning.

But today is not about Anning and neither is our future.

There is a change.org petition to have him removed from parliament. It currently has almost 900k signatures and is the most supported online petition in Australian history. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

7 hours ago, momo said:

Since you said Norway, you have heard the term sneak-Islamization which is used by your finance minister over and over again for no obvious reason than her being an islamophobe and racist. Yet, will anybody in your country call her a racist? No? Why is that? Other vile anti-Muslim statements by british politicians, australian politicians, american politicians, italian politicians, hungrian politicians and other european politicians are not PC. And then to compare israeli apartheid politics to general Islam and Muslims is really out of place. You should try to compare islamophobia with european antisemitism. Then you will get the idea of how it is to be a Muslim in this toxic environment.

Actually that F.M. and her party has been broadly called out as rascists in Norway for the last 20-30 years. 

And you missed the point on the Israeli bit completely. I was pointing out how it's possible to discuss the validety and rationality behind something even if people seek the victim role. You can't not speak up about creationism and what not, because some people will pull the victim card. It had nothing to do with comparing general Islam to apartheid and what not, but I think we both know you actually knew that. 

Edited March 17, 2019 by KenjiOgiwara