I was in India recently, and the subject of racism against Indian students in Australia came up a fair bit. It's a huge issue there - headline news in most newspapers and TV news.

Indians don't understand it, and I had to say that I don't get it either. Before the recent news of the 2 Indian murders, I was saying that it was just a media beat-up. Two indian medical students told me that it's dangerous for young Indians in Australia and I said I thought this was overrated. I told them that the big cities are totally safe.

Now I'm not too sure - especially after the Victorian Police commissioner has come out to say that the Victorian police had identified a phenomenon of racist crimes against Indians in Melbourne 2 years ago - well before the recent media attention and protests.

Indians see it as a "complexion issue" - referring to the colour of their skin. I see the problem more as a cultural issue. If it was simply about skin colour, surely we'd be attacking Africans.

Australia is not an Aparteid state - we don't discriminate against "half-castes", "quarter-castes" or "quadroons."

We used to, of course. Up until the 1970s such ideas were written down in immigration and Aboriginal Affairs legislation. The White Australia Policy existed to keep Australia white as well as mono-cultural. We can hardly say that Australia has never been a racist country. Since federation, Australia has been explicitly racist.

But curry bashing? Why? And why now?

Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths.

Indian emmigrants are, on the whole, extremely well educated and hard-working. Indian students in Australia consistently top exam results. In many fields, Indians are over-achievers, and globally, India is starting to make its presence felt as a burgeoning superpower.

Could this have something to do with the violence?

Culturally, there are differences. Indians are not laid-back. Their culture is loud, and often, Indians come across as overexcited and pushy. Try forming an orderly queue in India - almost impossible.

But setting someone on fire because of their race? I find this extremely hard to understand. If this is a race crime, it highlights a hatred of Ku Klu Klan proportions, and I can't see any obvious reason for Australians to hate Indians. We've faught on the same side in war. We play cricket together. Maybe I'm missing something. Still...

So my question is this: is there an underlying resentment towards Indians in Australia right now? And what causes it?

If not, is all the media attention just another tabloid frenzy?

Quote:

But curry bashing? Why? And why now?

Do you think the answer may lie in the reason you used the term "curry bashing" without an explicit acknowledgement of your own irony?

Would Indians be forgiven for thinking that the easy use of a belittling epithet indicates underlying contempt?

Quote:

Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths.

Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess.

Evidence indicates that the 'racist' attacks against Indians are perpetuated by the Lebs

But this is not something that Abu or the media will inspect either (abu would deny it anyway),,,easier and more convenient to blame it on whitey eh?

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant.

I don't think an Indian whose being attacked would really care what ethnic background the person originally had, they are an Australian, in Australia, attacking them. Simple as that.

Yes some attacks have involved Lebanese, and probably many other backgrounds. When are Anglo Australians going to accept that people born, raised, educated, cultured here ARE Australians, no matter what their historical background. I'm sure when Arab Australians are great sporting heroes or other such things, you won't mind taking credit for their Aussieness...

Big Donger wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2010 at 10:30pm:

We used to, of course. Up until the 1970s such ideas were written down in immigration and Aboriginal Affairs legislation. The White Australia Policy existed to keep Australia white as well as mono-cultural. We can hardly say that Australia has never been a racist country. Since federation, Australia has been explicitly racist.

Actually (and I found this out very recently) Indians used to get an exemption during the days of the White Australia policy. I don't know if it was because they were part of the British Empire, or if they shared a love of cricket, but there was an  exemption.

I don't live in a big city, so I can't comment on the extent of racism in these places, but I didn't think it was all that bad in rural parts of Australia. However a Filipino friend recently said that Australia was a very racist country, and that made me sit up and listen because he is one of the most easy going people I know.

Yeah there's always going to be problems with people of different nationalities and cultures.
However, the political truth is that if their skin is a dark, then it's a racist issue, but if their skin is fair, then it's an international issue.

I suppose we can somewhat blame corporate greed for resentments against Indians. Corporations are the ones who pay for cheap Indian labour, Indian people to persistently phone people at meal times and to make it hard for Australians to get a university place.
I've registered my phone number to stop Indians calling me, now they come to my door at meal times with their les.

This may have something to do with the repercussions, but there are more reasons involved.
Indian students most often choose the cheapest areas to live where crimes more often occur. They also often seem oblivious to dangers in the jobs they choose, and the places and times that they travel.
The Indian student recently murdered (was this the only Indian student murder?) was walking through an area which I know very well. There is no way that I would take this path late at night as it is full of recent African immigrants and gangs. It seems that this guy took that path most nights, ...just ridiculous in my book.

Now we have the Indian media drumming up the situation. It's easy work for them to take the stories reported here and put their own spin on it.
But do they report that India's murder rate is more than twice ours?
Do they report on the 8000+ dowry murders which happen in india every year?
Do they report on the Austrlians murdered in India? There are currently about ten "unsolved" murders of Australians in India in recent years.
Do they report that India won't extradite the drunken Indian motorist who killed a bystander and fled the country?
Murder doesn't make the news in India unless it's somebody of note.

The pathetic reporting by the Indian media will do nothing but inflame the situation. So too will Indian ministers who try to tell our government what to do when their own backyard is filth.
Is this a bit of sour grapes about our government's decision to overturn the Howard agreement to sell uranium to India because they haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty?
The uranium deal would've far exceeded the money that we get from arrogant whinging Indian students. I'd be happy to do without both.i

Just to put it back into perspective (and not to say that Australia is therefore not racist)... Ask Indians about their so-called tolerant society with regards to religious division, social caste and, yes, colour. Ask them if its not true that the darker the skin complexion the more overtly discriminated against they will be. Ask them if they do not prefer light skinned people over dark as marriage partners.

Nope, India knows not about general opinions. They are an infantile democracy that will take thousands of years to mature.
The caste system, the dowry, the colour of neighbors, lives on as part of it's culture.
Hopefully that attitude will always be rejected here, although there are big signs that we are now accepting this caste system approach, which can only lead to a society of lies and filth such as India's.

There is no other perspectie to put it into other than Indians are vehemently trying to dupe us with their lies. They need out.

I know one person who hates Indians specifically. They are from Nepal.

There is plenty of racism in Australia. There are blatantly racist Australians on this forum. That they target Indians is probably down to their numbers, visibility, success and loudness.

Quote:

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant.

Interesting that race is a non-issue in racism.


Quote:

I don't think an Indian whose being attacked would really care what ethnic background the person originally had, they are an Australian, in Australia, attacking them. Simple as that.

Of course they do. If they didn't, they wouldn't label it racist. Being targetted for your race adds to the level of fear you experience.


Quote:

and to make it hard for Australians to get a university place

How so? Foreign students support our universities financially.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2010 at 11:23pm:

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant.

It's an important distinction if the reason for the attacks have their roots in non-Australian inspired religious intolerance, i.e. Lebanese-Australian Muslims expressing a twisted sense of identification with Pakistani Muslims.

helian,

I very much doubt it has anything to do with religion. Lebanese youth who go out marauding in the streets usually have no idea, nor care for religion, and will often be of mixed christian/muslim backgrounds anyway.

Relating everything back to Islam, when this issue clearly has nothing to do with Islam, is just becoming petty, really.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 9:36am:

helian, I very much doubt it has anything to do with religion. Lebanese youth who go out marauding in the streets usually have no idea, nor care for religion, and will often be of mixed christian/muslim backgrounds anyway. Relating everything back to Islam, when this issue clearly has nothing to do with Islam, is just becoming petty, really.

Well I was speculating, Abu. You, however, seem certain that these Lebanese bad guys have no idea of Islam and/or are of mixed religious backgrounds. It's not necessary to be a religious scholar in order to express the hatreds of one's ethnic-religious heritage.

Nope, I've just seen the trend...

Less religious -> more likely to be racist.
More religious -> pretty much no chance of being racist.

As someone practises Islam more, he'd have to realise racism is an extremely opposite concept to Islam, and could not maintain his racism.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

Nope, I've just seen the trend... Less religious -> more likely to be racist. More religious -> pretty much no chance of being racist. As someone practises Islam more, he'd have to realise racism is an extremely opposite concept to Islam, and could not maintain his racism.

They *should* realise that, but that doesn't mean it necessarily happens in practice, right?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

Nope, I've just seen the trend... Less religious -> more likely to be racist. More religious -> pretty much no chance of being racist. As someone practises Islam more, he'd have to realise racism is an extremely opposite concept to Islam, and could not maintain his racism.

It's opposed to killing other Muslims too (apparently) and the muder of children (or so I'd imagine). It doesn't stop Muslims from committing those atrocities. Why would over-zealous Muslims stop at attacking Indians if they believed they should do so for their imagined Pakistani 'brothers'?

But anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Lebanese Australians involved in attacks on Indians were devout. I suggested that they may have acted on inherited (religious-defined) hatred.

Either way, its reasonable to speculate that the motivation for attacks on Indians, when committed by Lebanese Australians, may have its roots in religious animosity native to the Indian subcontinent, adopted by other Muslims (be they practising or cultural only).

But I will grant you that it is dangerous to be complacent about that being its only cause. Australia does have a home-grown racism problem that is not religiously motivated as may be demonstrated again on this Tuesday's National holiday which has transmogrified for some into Abuse-an-Asian day.

Quote:

But anyway, I wasn't suggesting that Lebanese Australians involved in attacks on Indians were devout. I suggested that they may have acted on inherited (religious-defined) hatred.

But Indians and Pakistanis are effectively the same people. In fact a large % of Pakistanis are actually originally from inside India of today. Likewise, Indian students in Australia could be sikhs, Hindus or Muslims. So randomly attacking Indian students would just be ludicrous, if it's claimed the motive (which is nothing but pure fantasy on your part by the way) is supposedly solidarity with their Pakistani brothers...


Quote:

But I will grant you that it is dangerous to be complacent about that being its only cause. Australia does have a home-grown racism problem that is not religiously motivated as may be demonstrated again on this Tuesday's National holiday which has transmogrified for some into Abuse-an-Asian day.

Nowhere has it ever been demonstrated that religious motivation is involved. It's pure speculation on your part.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2010 at 11:23pm:

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant.

Not to them it ain't. Nor is it irrelevant to these two Muslim-lebanese-jordanian losers:


Australian man jailed for terrorism in Lebanon
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker

Posted Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:14am AEDT

An Australian man has been jailed for two years in Lebanon for his involvement with a group accused of terrorist activity.

Imad Farouk Bsiso, a 35-year-old Jordanian-Australian from New South Wales, was one of seven men sentenced to jail for various offences related to terrorism, arms trafficking and forgery.

The military tribunal in Beirut found the men guilty of planning terrorist acts in Lebanon, trafficking weapons, and falsifying official documents.

Bsiso was sentenced to two years jail with hard labour, but with nine months deducted for time already spent in custody.

A Jordanian-New Zealand man was also jailed, along with two Palestinians.

Three other men, all Palestinian, are still on the run and were sentenced in their absence.




Calling them hyphenated-Australians is an insult to every Australian.  They should be called Lebanese and Jordanian Muslim perjurers who hold Australian and NZ passports by lying at their citizenship ceremonies. Such perjury should result in the loss of what was gained by it.

How do you know they had citizenship ceremonies? *Shock*horror*surprise*, some Muslims have already been born in Australia... starting from about 150 years ago now.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

But Indians and Pakistanis are effectively the same people. In fact a large % of Pakistanis are actually originally from inside India of today. Likewise, Indian students in Australia could be sikhs, Hindus or Muslims. So randomly attacking Indian students would just be ludicrous, if it's claimed the motive (which is nothing but pure fantasy on your part by the way) is supposedly solidarity with their Pakistani brothers...

There's nothing logical about racism. It's much like religion... Founded on absurdities, half-truths, hearsay, prejudice and lies.

In a discussion that I once had with a Lebanese Muslim, he pointed out that it is sooo easy to get away with stuff in this country because we are so trusting of what somebody tells them. But he also said that he always has to look over his shoulder and that's what makes it not worthwhile to continue his ways.
I also probably gained his trust during a bitch session against the U.S., and he told of his mistrust and hatred of the Christian Lebanese.  
It's funny that he is able to come here and hate his own countrymen, and yet if we utter a word against any of them, then we get the racist label.

Australians really don't know how much we are getting ripped off by immigrants who have a far different mindset, such as some of the the immigrants that we get from this Mid-East Asian area. They are a different breed to us and they come here to "honestly" rip us off if they can. This is their culture and they believe it to be moral.
Really, we don't understand the cultures that are coming here at all. We automatically consider them as ourselves but they are not part of our culture at all.
If possible, they will enforce their ways upon us. This is what we are seeing with the Indians now. They have such large numbers here that they have the veto to try and dupe us into surrendering some power to them.
We really need to take a closer look at their failed culture to understand what their game is within our blessed shores.i

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 12:14am:

How do you know they had citizenship ceremonies?

They are hyphenated-Australians. Always a dead giveaway.

So if I were to be hyphenated as an Anglo-Australian in a news article, would that mean I wasn't born here? Interesting powers of errr 'perception' you have there soren.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 7:15am:

So if I were to be hyphenated as an Anglo-Australian in a news article, would that mean I wasn't born here? Interesting powers of errr 'perception' you have there soren.

Because you look like and identify with the Mohammed bin Laalaas. The hyphen would indicate that you are a pseud.

Quote:

They have such large numbers here that they have the veto to try and dupe us into surrendering some power to them.

Yeh this is true. It won't be long before we're all eating tandoori and working as telemarketers and have corny ringtones blaring out of our mobiles.

Get a grip on yourself idiot. Really, this alarmist mentality is just so devoid of anything that resembles intelligence. Like the Jew who recently wrote an article that a 300,000 minority of Muslims are "Islamising" the 22 million Australians, because vegemite is now certified halal. Nevermind that the 150,000 of his fellow Jews here have had kosher stamps on vegemite for the past decade... Really wake up to the ridiculous nature of these claims.

Did Australians become "Italianised" because we eat a lot of pizza and pasta and play soccer now??

Talk about a pack of mungbean gumby halfwits. You're scared, because you know you're too $#%%^ stupid to resist a cultural invasion, that's about all it is.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2010 at 11:23pm:

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant. I don't think an Indian whose being attacked would really care what ethnic background the person originally had, they are an Australian, in Australia, attacking them. Simple as that. Yes some attacks have involved Lebanese, and probably many other backgrounds. When are Anglo Australians going to accept that people born, raised, educated, cultured here ARE Australians, no matter what their historical background. I'm sure when Arab Australians are great sporting heroes or other such things, you won't mind taking credit for their Aussieness...

not irrelevant when they see indians as imposing on ''their suburbs''

Amadd wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 3:18am:

If possible, they will enforce their ways upon us. This is what we are seeing with the Indians now. They have such large numbers here that they have the veto to try and dupe us into surrendering some power to them. We really need to take a closer look at their failed culture to understand what their game is within our blessed shores.

You may have hit the nail on the head, Amadd. Perhaps there's resentment against the large numbers of Indians currently in Australia.

We might have had a similar phenomenon of racist crimes against Chinese/Vietnamese in the 1980s, but this group might not have been as vocal (or media-savvy) in getting the word out.

I agree to a point with your post. However, these problems should clear up in a generation or two. Of course you're going to have issues when completely different cultures move in. Look at the influence the Cubans have had in US politics. In a generation, they become part of the establishment.

Our level of immigration is nothing compared to what some countries have. What will happen to the one million Haitian orphans, for example? People are not intrinsically one culture/race or another. When you move, you change. You learn to fit in.

I'm sure it is all about power and numbers. The battle for Vinegar Hill wouldn't have happened unless the Irish had significant numbers. The Rum Rebellion wouldn't have happened without a sizeable and corrupt Rum Corps.

Of course, the most significant group of all - monopolies like Woolworths and Coles - have very few numbers but huge power. Ten percent of the population gets 80 percent of the profits while Alan Jones and Today Tonight harp on about small-time con-artists and the rise in ethnic crime - well, the rise in any sort of crime.

Do you think there might be a connection?

It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants.

Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 4:17pm:

It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants. Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation.

The same can be said about Aussies who spend the entire day in the pub, drinking their life away.  Should we bash them too, considering their beer BO is very disturbing?

Quote:

They're Australians. Whether they have a Lebanese background or not is irrelevant.

So the Cronulla riots had no connection to any racism?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:17pm: It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants. Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation. The same can be said about Aussies who spend the entire day in the pub, drinking their life away.  Should we bash them too, considering their beer BO is very disturbing?

Be my guest.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:17pm: It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants. Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation. The same can be said about Aussies who spend the entire day in the pub, drinking their life away.  Should we bash them too, considering their beer BO is very disturbing? Be my guest.

Yeah and euthanase old people... They stink of stale urine.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 8:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:17pm: It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants. Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation. The same can be said about Aussies who spend the entire day in the pub, drinking their life away.  Should we bash them too, considering their beer BO is very disturbing? Be my guest. Yeah and euthanase old people... They stink of stale urine.

While we're at it, can we bash anyone who owns a cat? They usually smell too.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 8:21pm: Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 8:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 25th, 2010 at 4:17pm: It would go a long way if the curry-munching community could be persuaded NOT to store their clothes directly above the curry pot and to take morning showers with soap and use anti-stale curry deodorants. Their dogged clinging to the 'cultural heritage' of reeking of BO and stale curry is behind these attacks on the subcontinental community, in my view. These are crimes in response to extreme olfactory provocation. The same can be said about Aussies who spend the entire day in the pub, drinking their life away.  Should we bash them too, considering their beer BO is very disturbing? Be my guest. Yeah and euthanase old people... They stink of stale urine. While we're at it, can we bash anyone who owns a cat? They usually smell too.

Go ahead, you are the master of your destiny.

I like to look at the house across the road, somehow the Indians that live there haver managed to squeeze 5 cars into a front yard the size of a shoe box and of course three of them are ex- taxis. Thats not to mention the three cars parked in the street, how many live there is anybodies guess.

pope urban 2 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 8:59am:

I like to look at the house across the road, somehow the Indians that live there haver managed to squeeze 5 cars into a front yard the size of a shoe box and of course three of them are ex- taxis. Thats not to mention the three cars parked in the street, how many live there is anybodies guess.

Should be no more than five to a house... That's the decent Christian way... Any more is demonic.

Oops... Should I say decent Protestant Christian way... Left booters get to have 10.

Hey carefull, us Catholics might recruit some suicide bombers and start a religious war. we havent forgotten the Reformation ;)

pope urban 2 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

we havent forgotten the Reformation ;)

Or Cromwell... May he rot in hell.

I know ye jest, but you strike upon a root cause of ill will towards migrants, and that is that they bring standards of living with them that we dislike.
I was renovating a single fronted terrace house in richmond, back in the early eighties, and vietnamese moved in next door, so I got to observe their living habits over the next couple of months.

They had sixteen adult people living in the one tiny house, they had four people sleeping in two, side by side, lean to structures just 4 feet wide, by 8 foot long, built against the rear fence.

I saw different people leaving these lean to's in the morning, and others go in who must have worked the night shift, to go to sleep.

The poorestaussies had to compete for the lowest paid jobs, with these people, now they could not get rent for $5, because they did not share beds, or squash inordinate numbers into smal spaces, and so resentment grew between the least successful in our society, and the newcomers, because their standards were lowered because of what the newcomers were prepared to put up with.

Since seeing this, I have always felt that this lowering of standards, and competition for accommodation and work, at the lower end of the social scale has been at the root of racial tensions in this country.

Yep, a few years ago lived next door to an Indonesian family of about 10 adults who did the same thing... half worked dayshift, the other half nightshift. I'm sure it contravened housing regulations (they were renting the place), but they were quiet neighbours so no one got uppity about it (I don't think). When I drive past the new beachside 'Taj Mahals' that have replaced the nana-and-pop 1/4 acre fibro weekend shacks, I wonder whether they all own one each by now.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 9:35am:

I know ye jest, but you strike upon a root cause of ill will towards migrants, and that is that they bring standards of living with them that we dislike. I was renovating a single fronted terrace house in richmond, back in the early eighties, and vietnamese moved in next door, so I got to observe their living habits over the next couple of months. They had sixteen adult people living in the one tiny house, they had four people sleeping in two, side by side, lean to structures just 4 feet wide, by 8 foot long, built against the rear fence. I saw different people leaving these lean to's in the morning, and others go in who must have worked the night shift, to go to sleep. The poorestaussies had to compete for the lowest paid jobs, with these people, now they could not get rent for $5, because they did not share beds, or squash inordinate numbers into smal spaces, and so resentment grew between the least successful in our society, and the newcomers, because their standards were lowered because of what the newcomers were prepared to put up with. Since seeing this, I have always felt that this lowering of standards, and competition for accommodation and work, at the lower end of the social scale has been at the root of racial tensions in this country.

This was precisely the line the unions presented when they successfully agitated for the white Australia policy.

What you're basically saying then is you're jealous of their innovative nature. That they can come here and prosper, when you cannot, and so you resent them. They should come here and fail, so then you could claim they offer nothing to the country and boot them out... right?

Pathetic really.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:53am:

What you're basically saying then is you're jealous of their innovative nature. That they can come here and prosper, when you cannot, and so you resent them. They should come here and fail, so then you could claim they offer nothing to the country and boot them out... right? Pathetic really.

Let them in, make them fail, boot them out - under that frazzled beard of yours lurks an utterly monomaniacal, frayed and persecuted mind - if mind is the word I want.

Sleeping in shifts, four to  a bed in a lean-to is your idea of innovation. Glorious third world building standards are your idea of  innovation.

Precisely Soren, and only Abu could be so deliberately obtuse as to mix acceptance of degradation, as innovation.

You're assuming living 10+ to a house is how they intend to live the rest of their lives. It's not much different to students or teeners living the same way for the same reason... sava da money.

And you think most of the world lives 2 to 4 to a house? You're dreaming.

The suburban, nuclear family thing must seem very strange to people from extended families in rural villiages. So must local laws applying to everything from building regulations to where you can hang your washing.

The striking thing about developed, Western lifestyles is the lonliness.

Anyway, I bet you that Indian household with the 5 cars would be the cleanest house on the street.

Big Donger wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

And you think most of the world lives 2 to 4 to a house? You're dreaming. The suburban, nuclear family thing must seem very strange to people from extended families in rural villiages. So must local laws applying to everything from building regulations to where you can hang your washing. The striking thing about developed, Western lifestyles is the lonliness. Anyway, I bet you that Indian household with the 5 cars would be the cleanest house on the street.

Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia...

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 11:42am:

Big Donger wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 9:32am: And you think most of the world lives 2 to 4 to a house? You're dreaming. The suburban, nuclear family thing must seem very strange to people from extended families in rural villiages. So must local laws applying to everything from building regulations to where you can hang your washing. The striking thing about developed, Western lifestyles is the lonliness. Anyway, I bet you that Indian household with the 5 cars would be the cleanest house on the street. Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more that the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia...

]
Very true. I doubt they're here for the solitude though.

Quote:

Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia...

Don't kid yourself.

Most are here to get educated, nothing more nothing less.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Quote: Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia... Don't kid yourself. Most are here to get educated, nothing more nothing less.

No jokes in Islam, eh, Ayatollah??

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Quote: Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia... Don't kid yourself. Most are here to get educated, nothing more nothing less.

... apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order. And peace, Reggie, peace.



They want nothing more than to get educated, apply for permanent residency, get a job, buy a house, get married and raise a family in peace.  Even if it means leaving the huts and the corruption and the suffocating backwardness behind and putting up with having a car or two, a big enough house for grandma to have her own room, and a chance for their children to grow up in a meritocracy.  

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2010 at 11:07pm:

Quote: Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths. Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess.

What about caste system which is so deeply embedded in Indian psycho?
Majority of Indians students who study oversees are from the upper caste society continuing to behave as upper caste towards Aussies what doesn’t work with Australia.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:

Quote: Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia... Don't kid yourself. Most are here to get educated, nothing more nothing less.

You talk as if a superior education system, worth leaving your country for, is some accidental natural development, unrelated to the place that created and maintained it.

The lunar symbol of Islam is apt in your case - you are lunatic.

Does that mean that you admit that when Baghdad and other Islamic cities were the education capitals of the world and others used to flock to them to have their children educated, that it was because of the superiority of Islam?

Racism has always struck me as being particularly parochial and inbred. I could never understand at any time in my life why people should be scared of other people just because they have a different skin colour.

I don't see the point in denying that racism exists in Australia. It's obvious. Having said that, I think it's worse in the UK and France, and it's definitely worse in Scandinavia.

In parts of Africa, I've seen an obsequious form of reverse racism, which is even more intriguing. An African guy can be left for hours waiting at a bank whereas a European will be seen immediately. All the bank staff were African.

Quote:

In parts of Africa, I've seen an obsequious form of reverse racism, which is even more intriguing. An African guy can be left for hours waiting at a bank whereas a European will be seen immediately. All the bank staff were African.

This exists in the Arabic world too.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:14am:

Does that mean that you admit that when Baghdad and other Islamic cities were the education capitals of the world and others used to flock to them to have their children educated, that it was because of the superiority of Islam?

Muslims flocked to them from all part of the empire. There was no 'flocking' by the kuffar.

Quote:

Muslims flocked to them from all part of the empire. There was no 'flocking' by the kuffar.

Nope, Muslims and non-Muslims both attended places like Bayt al-Hikmah. Although mostly from within the Islamic world, yes, because non-Muslims outside the Muslim world generally had no appreciation of knowledge at that time. Not our fault if Christian Europe was so steeped in it's backwardness that they weren't interested in learning. However I have read before that some englightened and wealthy Europeans did send their kids to the Muslim lands to be educated.

Here's an interesting article about the Islamic learning institutions, and their interaction with Europe. It was mostly in the form of taking the vast libraries of books they had no use for, with all the "useless ramblings of the ancients in them" :)

athos wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 6:00pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:07pm: Quote: Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths. Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess. What about caste system which is so deeply embedded in Indian psycho? Majority of Indians students who study oversees are from the upper caste society continuing to behave as upper caste towards Aussies what doesn’t work with Australia.

The caste system is not as deeply embedded in India as you might think, Athos.

And from my experience - from the Brahmins I've met in India and Australia - there is no sense of superiority. Upper-caste Hindus are motivated by a sense of service, not a sense of superiority. And you're totally mistaken if you think Indians apply the caste system to non-Indians in Australia. They may be a tad disgruntled by drunken racist pigs, but...

On the whole, Brahmins work as doctors, teachers and social workers - helping professions. Upper caste Hindus, in my experience, are not uppity at all.

The majority of Indian students in Australia are from families with money. It's a mistake to think that caste in india equates with money. It doesn't. It equates more with values and upbringing.

From discussions I have had with Indians, educational qualifications and profession are replacing caste. If you're not a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, they will look down on you.

Big Donger wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

athos wrote on Jan 29th, 2010 at 6:00pm: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:07pm: Quote: Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths. Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess. What about caste system which is so deeply embedded in Indian psycho? Majority of Indians students who study oversees are from the upper caste society continuing to behave as upper caste towards Aussies what doesn’t work with Australia. The caste system is not as deeply embedded in India as you might think, Athos. And from my experience - from the Brahmins I've met in India and Australia - there is no sense of superiority. Upper-caste Hindus are motivated by a sense of service, not a sense of superiority. And you're totally mistaken if you think Indians apply the caste system to non-Indians in Australia. They may be a tad disgruntled by drunken racist pigs, but... On the whole, Brahmins work as doctors, teachers and social workers - helping professions. Upper caste Hindus, in my experience, are not uppity at all. The majority of Indian students in Australia are from families with money. It's a mistake to think that caste in india equates with money. It doesn't. It equates more with values and upbringing.

Yes caste system is very deeply embedded in Indian Psychology.

Everything what you’ve just said is a romantic bull poo that has nothing to do with reality.
When I was sent, as a supervisor, in the company’s department in India very shortly I realized how caste system is much more important to Indian employees than the formal official management structure. Every Indian was some sort of priest and new his position in terms of his cast and within his caste. The higher ranking priests were more in charge than their official superiors.  
To conclude, Because of their caste system Indians are actually themselves the biggest racist on the planet.
Different thing is that Anglos like and trust them because Indians have been trained to be perfect Pome slaves. Now Grate Brittan wants to get rid of them (Half London are Indians, Pakistanis etc.) and massively send them in their colony Australia. When they come in Australia they are very arrogant and expect to have the same privilege status as white Pome masters, but the reality probably seems different.

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 5:03pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 4:26pm: Quote: Well, an awful lot of third world villagers seem to want nothing more than the dreadful loneliness blissful solitude of Western suburbia... Don't kid yourself. Most are here to get educated, nothing more nothing less. ... apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order. And peace, Reggie, peace. They want nothing more than to get educated, apply for permanent residency, get a job, buy a house, get married and raise a family in peace.  Even if it means leaving the huts and the corruption and the suffocating backwardness behind and putting up with having a car or two, a big enough house for grandma to have her own room, and a chance for their children to grow up in a meritocracy.

Sure. But you'd be suprised how many people who do get permanency go back - and not just Indians. Aussie Aussie Aussie is not the Sugar Candy Mountain for all.

But thank God for all those people who take their qualifications and go back to help people who really need it. After all, how are countries like India going to get better irrigation and public health and roads and all the rest?

Not all Indian students are conniving parasites. Some come to the West to learn how to help change their part of the world.

They're starting to think twice about it now though.

An Indian guy I know had rocks pelted at him by primary school students (because he was wearing an orange vest). He didn't want to tell his mother about it because she would fly over hear and drag him home by the ear, for his own protection. The Indians realise it is a beat-up by the media.

athos wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 6:03pm: athos wrote on Jan 29th, 2010 at 6:00pm: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:07pm: Quote: Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths. Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess. What about caste system which is so deeply embedded in Indian psycho? Majority of Indians students who study oversees are from the upper caste society continuing to behave as upper caste towards Aussies what doesn’t work with Australia. The caste system is not as deeply embedded in India as you might think, Athos. And from my experience - from the Brahmins I've met in India and Australia - there is no sense of superiority. Upper-caste Hindus are motivated by a sense of service, not a sense of superiority. And you're totally mistaken if you think Indians apply the caste system to non-Indians in Australia. They may be a tad disgruntled by drunken racist pigs, but... On the whole, Brahmins work as doctors, teachers and social workers - helping professions. Upper caste Hindus, in my experience, are not uppity at all. The majority of Indian students in Australia are from families with money. It's a mistake to think that caste in india equates with money. It doesn't. It equates more with values and upbringing. Yes caste system is very deeply embedded in Indian Psychology. Everything what you’ve just said is a romantic bull poo that has nothing to do with reality. When I was sent, as a supervisor, in the company’s department in India very shortly I realized how caste system is much more important to Indian employees than the formal official management structure. Every Indian was some sort of priest and new his position in terms of his cast and within his caste. The higher ranking priests were more in charge than their official superiors.   To conclude, Because of their caste system Indians are actually themselves the biggest racist on the planet. Different thing is that Anglos like and trust them because Indians have been trained to be perfect Pome slaves. Now Grate Brittan wants to get rid of them (Half London are Indians, Pakistanis etc.) and massively send them in their colony Australia. When they come in Australia they are very arrogant and expect to have the same privilege status as white Pome masters, but the reality probably seems different.

Athos, our experiences must have been quite different, but I'm not saying that the caste system is dead by any means. What I am saying is that with higher caste in India (in the domains where caste is still an issue) comes greater responsibility.

Still, I'm a little unsure what you mean by every Indian being some kind of priest - any chance you could elaborate on this?

Ask Indians you know well enough to be sure they're telling you the truth about the elitism, discrimination, racism, tribalism and parochialism that is rife in India and how it breaks out into violent rampages from time to time... And then let them compare that to their collective experience in Australia.

And never mind the corruption within their police forces that can make bodies disappear.

Here's a blast from the recent past for us all to ponder.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hindus-paid-for-christian-murders/story-e6frg6t6-1111118094563

Big Donger wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

Athos, our experiences must have been quite different, but I'm not saying that the caste system is dead by any means. What I am saying is that with higher caste in India (in the domains where caste is still an issue) comes greater responsibility.

Religious propaganda... The caste system spawns arrogant elitism, a sense of congenital entitlement and contempt for the lower castes. Any experience with human nature with bear that out.

I agree wholeheartedly, [edited] Helian.

Quote:

An Indian guy I know had rocks pelted at him by primary school students (because he was wearing an orange vest). He didn't want to tell his mother about it because she would fly over hear and drag him home by the ear, for his own protection. The Indians realise it is a beat-up by the media.

Anecdotal evidence from "An Indian" gives you amazing insight into how "The Indians" think fd, I'm amazed...

And he probably just didn't want to say honestly to you, because he probably fears you might turn against him. I interact with many Indian students (mostly Hindus btw) on a regular basis, and they know I am a Muslim and therefore obviously not a racist, and they tell me their honest feelings about society here, and every single one of them I've spoken to has said the same thing, it's racist here for them, and they really feel unwelcome by quite a lot of people, not all, but quite a lot.

Wow Abu! That's amazing that you can interact with the Hindus without felling the urge to shoot them. How benevolent of you.
I'll bet that at any opportuntiy you would be trying to convert them to your peace loving religion so that they may be blessed enough to be more like you ..God.

As already mentioned, it's a bit hypocritical for Indians to come here and go accusing Australians of being racist just because they happen to have a shade darker skin than the average Australian.
No we don't have to accept foreign values that are disagreeable to ours.

We thought that we fought for the right to have an opinion. If the opinion is that some people don't like to be annoyed at meal times, or if they don't like the remnants of the caste culture that Indians bring here, or whatever else, then the Indians pointing to the colour of their skin as an excuse to continue to not fit in here becomes a magnanimus insult to all Australians and all we've fought for.

There are more shades of skin here in this country and less discrimination due to personal differences than you'd find in just about any other nation on earth.
The Indian attitude has got them to where they are now, and we don't neccessarily have to want to be like them.i

Quote:

Anecdotal evidence from "An Indian" gives you amazing insight into how "The Indians" think fd, I'm amazed...

No Abu, it's what he said. Obviously many people (eg his mother) do not realise.

Big Donger wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

athos wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:30pm: Big Donger wrote on Jan 30th, 2010 at 6:03pm: athos wrote on Jan 29th, 2010 at 6:00pm: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 23rd, 2010 at 11:07pm: Quote: Indians don't get it. They don't understand it because, racially, India is a very accepting country. In a country of such a diverse population, you have to be. No matter what you might have heard, Indians are tolerant of other faiths and cultures. On the whole, Hindus and Muslims get on well in India, and Indians see this as one of their enduring strengths. Yeh, except for when Hindu mobs rampage through cities in Gujaraat, cleansing entire suburbs of Muslims... apart from that, yeh it's fairly peaceful I guess. What about caste system which is so deeply embedded in Indian psycho? Majority of Indians students who study oversees are from the upper caste society continuing to behave as upper caste towards Aussies what doesn’t work with Australia. The caste system is not as deeply embedded in India as you might think, Athos. And from my experience - from the Brahmins I've met in India and Australia - there is no sense of superiority. Upper-caste Hindus are motivated by a sense of service, not a sense of superiority. And you're totally mistaken if you think Indians apply the caste system to non-Indians in Australia. They may be a tad disgruntled by drunken racist pigs, but... On the whole, Brahmins work as doctors, teachers and social workers - helping professions. Upper caste Hindus, in my experience, are not uppity at all. The majority of Indian students in Australia are from families with money. It's a mistake to think that caste in india equates with money. It doesn't. It equates more with values and upbringing. Yes caste system is very deeply embedded in Indian Psychology. Everything what you’ve just said is a romantic bull poo that has nothing to do with reality. When I was sent, as a supervisor, in the company’s department in India very shortly I realized how caste system is much more important to Indian employees than the formal official management structure. Every Indian was some sort of priest and new his position in terms of his cast and within his caste. The higher ranking priests were more in charge than their official superiors.   To conclude, Because of their caste system Indians are actually themselves the biggest racist on the planet. Different thing is that Anglos like and trust them because Indians have been trained to be perfect Pome slaves. Now Grate Brittan wants to get rid of them (Half London are Indians, Pakistanis etc.) and massively send them in their colony Australia. When they come in Australia they are very arrogant and expect to have the same privilege status as white Pome masters, but the reality probably seems different. Athos, our experiences must have been quite different, but I'm not saying that the caste system is dead by any means. What I am saying is that with higher caste in India (in the domains where caste is still an issue) comes greater responsibility. Still, I'm a little unsure what you mean by every Indian being some kind of priest - any chance you could elaborate on this?

It is very complex for outsiders but maybe this will help you.


Caste ranking and caste-based interaction have occurred for centuries and will continue to do so well into the foreseeable future.
Castes that fall within the top four ranked varnas are sometimes referred to as the "clean castes," with Dalits considered "unclean." Castes of the top three ranked varnas are often designated "twice-born," in reference to the ritual initiation undergone by male members, in which investiture with the Hindu sacred thread constitutes a kind of ritual rebirth. Non-Hindu caste like groups generally fall outside these designations.

Each caste is believed by devout Hindus to have its own dharma, or divinely ordained code of proper conduct. Accordingly, there is often a high degree of tolerance for divergent lifestyles among different castes. Brahmans are usually expected to be non-violent and spiritual priests, according with their traditional roles as vegetarian teetotaler priests. Kshatriyas priests are supposed to be strong, as fighters and rulers should be, with a taste for aggression, eating meat, and drinking alcohol. Vaishyas priests are stereotyped as adept businessmen, in accord with their traditional activities in commerce. Shudras priests are often described by others as tolerably pleasant but expectably somewhat base in behaviour, whereas Dalits priests especially Sweepers--are often regarded by others as followers of vulgar life-styles. Conversely, lower-caste people often view people of high rank as haughty and unfeeling.

Indian media ignore killing

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/indian-media-ignore-killing/story-e6frg6nf-1225824866540

THE Indian media have all but ignored a murder allegedly committed by three of the country's own citizens, in marked contrast to the hysterical coverage of allegedly racist attacks on Indian nationals in Australia.

Fruit-picker Ranjodh Singh was believed to be alive when he was allegedly set on fire near the NSW Riverina town of Griffith on December 29.

Three Indian nationals faced court yesterday charged over Singh's murder after police arrested the third suspect, a 25-year-old man, in Wagga Wagga.

Gurpreet Singh, 23, and his wife, Harpreet Kaur Bullar, 20, faced Sutherland Local Court, and Harpreet Singh appeared in Wagga Wagga Local Court. Neither Gurpreet Singh nor Ms Bullar applied for bail. They were arrested by NSW homicide squad detectives on Thursday.

The killing has drawn little attention in India. The widely watched television network Times Now, which has accused Australian police and government officials of apathy in the face of attacks on Indians, featured extensive coverage of the alleged murder of Nitin Garg on January 2 on its website. A search of Garg's name revealed seven news items. These included footage with headlines such as "Attack Racist in Nature" and "Enough is Enough -- When will the Australian government wake up?"

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 10:05pm:

Ask Indians you know well enough to be sure they're telling you the truth about the elitism, discrimination, racism, tribalism and parochialism that is rife in India and how it breaks out into violent rampages from time to time... And then let them compare that to their collective experience in Australia. And never mind the corruption within their police forces that can make bodies disappear. Here's a blast from the recent past for us all to ponder. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hindus-paid-for-christian-murders/story-e6frg6t6-1111118094563

Very well documented Helian.
And why Hindu want to kill those poor Christians and Buddhists? because converters tried desperately to avoid their destiny in inhuman, slavery and racist caste system.

Quote:

IT IS a magazine cover that will make the hearts of Australian university bosses and diplomats sink. "Why the Aussies hate us" screams the cover of this week's influential Indian news magazine Outlook. The 10-page coverage includes stories of young Indian victims of violence and racial abuse and describes how Indian students in Melbourne feel afraid on the streets. Van Thanh Rudd, an anti-racism activist and Kevin Rudd's nephew - recently criticised for wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit to protest against attacks on Indians - told Outlook the "dominant culture in Australia'' [ - is white] was racist, and that he had no doubt the attacks had been racially motivated. The magazine quotes far-right politicians and says it has found ''evidence that 'curry-bashing' is becoming a fun game for white Australians". Outlook, a centre-left weekly, is one of India's top-selling English-language magazines with a circulation of 1.5 million and a big online following. The story was introduced on the Outlook website with the headline "Anatomy of hate". The report is the latest in a stream of negative publicity about violence against Indians in Australia. There are signs the Indian government is increasingly impatient with Australia's response. The External Affairs Minister, S.M.Krishna, met the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, in London twice last week. An Indian government statement said Mr Krishna told Mr Smith it was increasingly difficult to accept the attacks were devoid of any racial motives and that he complained there had ''been no visible progress so far into most of the investigations''. The editor-in-chief of Outlook, Vinod Mehta, defended the coverage and denied allegations that the Indian media were overreacting. He told the Herald: "We sent two correspondents to Australia and they found that an overwhelming number of these incidents were racial and they found that Indians in Australia live in fear. There is tremendous outrage in this country. I don't think the Australians realise that." Mr Mehta said one reason for the anger was the "smug and superior attitude of the Australian government for denying there was racism and then telling the Indians not to hype this up". Mr Mehta said he published the story with great regret. "I like Australia a great deal but you have to see there is a problem, [- the problem is immigrants ] and by denying it you won't get anywhere." The story includes comments by right-wing groups in Australia. Outlook quotes Jim Saleam, the head of the anti-immigration party Australia First, that Indians are ''becoming a serious threat to white Australians in the job market". Bob Vinnicombe of One Nation is quoted as saying Australia ''should actively encourage bringing in Christians and white people from Zimbabwe and South Africa". [ - of course we should ] But the magazine does not report that three people charged with the murder of Ranjodh Singh were Indian nationals. Reports about attacks on Indians have damaged Australia's $15 billion a year international education industry.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/anatomy-of-hate-as-magazine-unleashes-antiaustralian-rage-20100131-n6n4.html

Quote:

Van Thanh Rudd

Sounds f uckin' true blue, mate.


Quote:

[ - of course we should ]

Imagine what somebody would say if a politican brought up "we need to bring in this African group into Australia as they are being horribly persecuted by the white population in their country, being hacked to shreds with machettes and raped en masse in the streets."

Oh right, those white guys deserved it. :(

Lets be honest, they smell of onions, they shout at each other, and they won't shut up on their mobiles, bothering the whole carriage. And those ring tones...

They all flock to the same department until - before you know it - the whole admin team is full of them. Before long, there's posters of their gods on all the notice boards and sweets left in the lunchroom on major festivals.

And there's always a wedding. You won't get any peace until all their kids are married off. You won't get any peace then either until the first house is bought - then all the investment properties. Then the grandkids and all the dramas with their marks and finding the right maths tutor. You won't get any peace at all.

You'd think there'd be something the government could do about it.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Lets be honest, they smell of onions, they shout at each other, and they won't shut up on their mobiles, bothering the whole carriage. And those ring tones... They all flock to the same department until - before you know it - the whole admin team is full of them. Before long, there's posters of their gods on all the notice boards and sweets left in the lunchroom on major festivals. And there's always a wedding. You won't get any peace until all their kids are married off. You won't get any peace then either until the first house is bought - then all the investment properties. Then the grandkids and all the dramas with their marks and finding the right maths tutor. You won't get any peace at all. You'd think there'd be something the government could do about it.

Aww... boo hoo Karnal.

They ALL do EVERYTHING, ay?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 1:45pm:

Aww... boo hoo Karnal. They ALL do EVERYTHING, ay?

Exactly. Only I forgot the endless chatter about cricket.

Cricket, property prices, grocery prices, their kids...

They refuse to assimilate, don't they?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 10:19am:

… Reports about attacks on Indians have damaged Australia's $15 billion a year international education industry.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/anatomy-of-hate-as-magazine-unleashes-antiaustralian-rage-20100131-n6n4.html[/quote]


I don’t think so, since most of them get permanent residency.
Do you think this immigration will stop?

Unless they demand permanent residency without the need for education first.

..And hey, don't forget about the ones who set themselves on fire during a bungled insurance job and then try to blame it on those racist paleskin Aussies!!

Quote:

I don’t think so, since most of them get permanent residency.

Actually that's a double bonus for us, not only do they pay for their own education, but we then get to benefit from it when they work here. I can't believe you'd be daft enough to claim that is not a bonus for us.

Triple bonus! Most Indians aren't Muslim, thank christ!

Quote:

Triple bonus! Most Indians aren't Muslim, thank christ!

But most Muslims are Indian (Sub-continental).

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:21am:

Quote: I don’t think so, since most of them get permanent residency. Actually that's a double bonus for us, not only do they pay for their own education, but we then get to benefit from it when they work here. I can't believe you'd be daft enough to claim that is not a bonus for us.

Providing they are not taking our jobs, but we can always go on the dole supported by taxes paid by "immigration by education".

And if Gandhi had had his way, India's first prime minister would have been Muslim, as would the entire cabinet and all departmental heads.

This was his attempt to prevent partition, and could well have created civil war.

But back to the racism thing - after reading Gandhi's autobiography, you can see why Indians get so sensitive about racism. Gandhi came to prominence fighting the race laws in South Africa - where Indians were not even allowed to walk next to a white person on a footpath.

I guess this is the reason Indian students protest racism so loudly. Their history of colonisation, their indentured labour in many countries as coolies, and the race laws that used to exist in places like South Africa and Australia.

In India (in my small experience), racism does not exist in the same context as it does here. I'm not sure if Aryan Indians look down on Dravidians or vice-versa, but I doubt it. There are tribal races in some regions who may experience racism in areas such as employment, for example.

There are litterally hundreds of languages in India. People don't tend discriminate against Bengalis, for example, or Tamils - not unless there's some personal or intergenerational beef.

Not beef, of course. Mutton.

There is every kind of discrimination in India.... Caste, religious, regional... you name it... And it can explode into ferocious violence.

One of the most diverse societies on the planet a shithole!? Who'da thunk it?! :D

Happy wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 2:10pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 11:21am: Quote: I don’t think so, since most of them get permanent residency. Actually that's a double bonus for us, not only do they pay for their own education, but we then get to benefit from it when they work here. I can't believe you'd be daft enough to claim that is not a bonus for us. Providing they are not taking our jobs, but we can always go on the dole supported by taxes paid by "immigration by education".

Immigrants tend to do far more to support our economy than those born locally. They are paying the taxes that fund the dole for lazy white people. They also create more jobs than they 'consume'.

So basically, the people who have created the lazy, pitiful and dependent dole-spongers (and allow them to continue to be this way) are also the people who are bringing in the immigrants in the first place -- yeah, great.

Really great people we have running this country.

Laziness is an inevitable consequence of wealth. Nothing motivates people better than hunger.

But just remember, the people who are running, and those trying to run, this country have got up off their arse done something to realise their aspirations for the nation.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 7:50pm:

Happy wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 2:10pm: abu_rashid wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 11:21am: Quote: I don’t think so, since most of them get permanent residency. Actually that's a double bonus for us, not only do they pay for their own education, but we then get to benefit from it when they work here. I can't believe you'd be daft enough to claim that is not a bonus for us. Providing they are not taking our jobs, but we can always go on the dole supported by taxes paid by "immigration by education". Immigrants tend to do far more to support our economy than those born locally. They are paying the taxes that fund the dole for lazy white people. They also create more jobs than they 'consume'.

Really? I think you are sucking up the paltitudes through a very thick straw.


"Those from the Middle East and Africa, in particular, have much higher unemployment rates which may lead to disaffection and community unrest in the long run if not addressed. "


And who had the temerity to state that fact? Some shaven headed nazi drongo? No.


http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn15.pdf

Soren, I don't see what the statistics you posted on immigration from Africa and the Middle East (and Vietnam) have to do with students and skilled migrants from India.

What the research you posted also stated is this:

"While recently arrived migrants generally have high rates of unemployment, the main exception is migrants from the Business Skills/Employer Nomination Scheme categories. The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia2 has identified that of migrants in these categories who arrived between September 1999 and August 2000, a negligible number were unemployed 18 months later."

It also stated that the reason the groups you identified have higher unemployment levels (of 10 - 12%) is the lack of English these migrants possess when they first arrive.

I doubt that there would be ANY Indian immigrants coming to Australia under the skilled migration program without good English, considering that English is pretty much India's national language.

I don't know of any research on Indian unemployment in Australia, but judging from the Indians I know and have worked with, I would be prepared to bet that the unemployment level of Indian immigrants in Australia is actually LOWER than the national average.

No platitudes through a straw, Soren - just a hunch.

As you can see from my post, I was responding to freediver's silly assertion:
"Immigrants tend to do far more to support our economy than those born locally. They are paying the taxes that fund the dole for lazy white people. They also create more jobs than they 'consume'. "

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 5:03pm:

They want nothing more than to get educated, apply for permanent residency, get a job, buy a house, get married and raise a family in peace.

Exactly.

Immigrants are better educated: report

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1185325096/0

Migrants are better educated, more law-abiding, are generally healthier and less dependent on welfare than the average Australian-born citizen, a new report reveals.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Laziness is an inevitable consequence of wealth. Nothing motivates people better than hunger.

In any given population you normally have two groups of people; those who are good, honest, and hard-working, and the other, smaller group; those that are lazy, dishonest and will simply take advantage if they can. These people are always going to be with us regardless of the political system that we are running, but certain ideologies and approaches can make the predilections of the garbage class less determining of outcomes. We, among many other Western nations, have been maintaining a system for the last fourty years that more strongly than ever before rewards their behavior or mitigates the seriousness of the consequences of their actions, allowing them not only to increase in frequency but also to make them as individuals simply so much worse. You can't possibly say that it's all entirely due to an increase in wealth-- many Asian families have been in Western countries for many generations, but because the culture of their group is considerably different from the wonderful, brave new society of the white man, they do not face the problems that we face. Many other very wealthy new societies have sprung up in many places outside the Western World, but again-- no problems in these places on our scale, because they have not yet developed the malignant tumor of progressive thought.

Progressives love to gloat and scoff at lazy white people, pointing at them whenever somebody dares suggest that certain groups, Africans or otherwise, simply aren't on the same level in the arts of civilization as white people are. Then, often, they will point to the successes of our immigration, who are quite evidently the product of selective migration (except Asians, who in these terms do tend to be better than whites on average), with words specifically chosen almost to carry the snide, implicit suggestion that whites are actually worse than these groups as a group (while of course maintaning that we're all equal of course...). Certainly, I do not like our underclass one bit either, but judging from the fact that at this moment they are unprecedented in size and more unruly than ever in behavior, it logically follows that an improvement the in social milleu will not be futile as an undertaking in improving them somewhat. Those of us who possess the worst blood need discipline, strong male influences in their lives, perhaps a traditional rite of passage and the imprinted understanding that one will not eat with what one does not earn.


Quote:

But just remember, the people who are running, and those trying to run, this country have got up off their arse done something to realise their aspirations for the nation.

I could get off my arse tomorrow and spend months, if not years, constructing an elaborate and realistic statue out of my own fecal matter. Hopefully none would commend me for such an endeavour.


Quote:

Migrants are better educated, more law-abiding, are generally healthier and less dependent on welfare than the average Australian-born citizen, a new report reveals.

This might even be true. I just don't see why I should accept it as a reason for my own dispossession.

It also says (I didn't click your URL) from the excerpt in your post 'more than the average Australian born citizen.' Are second generation lebanese (and other immigrants), Aboriginals, etc included? What about if you remove say, White and Northern Asian immigrants from this particular immigrant aggregate. What happens then? Just curious.

I doubt the statisticians went into that much detail, but you could always get your hands on the paper if you are that curious.

Yeah, I'll go searching, though not until I get home; Armenian internet is only affordable in the form of dialup.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 5:03pm: They want nothing more than to get educated, apply for permanent residency, get a job, buy a house, get married and raise a family in peace.  Exactly.

It does not follow, from what I said, that the immigrants are better than the locals.


If the bulk of the immigrants were superior to the locals, they, the immigrants, would have no reason to come here. Who wants to go to a place so 'obviously' inferior?

Your sleight of hand is ridiculous, so is FD's.  The sucking up of platitudinous nonsense through a very thick straw stands as correct, I'm afraid.

Your notions of superiority are quaint and simplistic.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 9:47pm:

Your notions of superiority are quaint and simplistic.

What are your notions of superioriority? Or do you think that the very idea of ranking is outdated?

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 9:47pm:

Your notions of superiority are quaint and simplistic.

With regards to the specific kind of superiority that you were referring to with your article, what exactly is wrong or simplistic with Soren saying that an individual could be better or worse than another in such a respect?

I don't think the article used the term, nor implied it. It made very specific claims, not generalisations.

Soren wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 9:44pm:

Big Donger wrote on Feb 5th, 2010 at 2:52pm: Soren wrote on Jan 27th, 2010 at 5:03pm: They want nothing more than to get educated, apply for permanent residency, get a job, buy a house, get married and raise a family in peace.  Exactly. It does not follow, from what I said, that the immigrants are better than the locals. If the bulk of the immigrants were superior to the locals, they, the immigrants, would have no reason to come here. Who wants to go to a place so 'obviously' inferior? Your sleight of hand is ridiculous, so is FD's.  The sucking up of platitudinous nonsense through a very thick straw stands as correct, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, Soren. I wasn't attempting to make you say that anyone's superior to anyone else or use your words out of context. Of course immigrants aren't "superior". Who is?

By quoting your original post I was attempting to uncover a point of agreement. I thought your quote was a good starting point for these sort of discussions, and I still do.

I'm also adverse to platitudinous nonsense. I think it makes good sense to experience, read, and learn how things really work rather than follow some manufactured ideological position on everything - which just lets someone else do your thinking for you.

I have also found that if all I do is defend perceived attacks on my own system of values, I learn nothing. I wall myself in.

In making this thread, I was attempting to find out if a genuine hostility towards Indians in Australia exists - and if a phenomenon of "curry bashing" actually occurs.

I'm not trying to argue one way or another on the pluses or minuses of immigration, but I understand that our ideas on this colours things.

I'm not arguing one way or another on the pros and cons of Indian culture either. How can I possibly, for example, defend the caste system?

If you scroll through the pages of this thread, you'll see a lot of stuff that relates to people's own personal beefs, biases, bones of contention, etc, and has nothing to do with the subject of the thread itself. It's what you'd expect, of course, and I'm by no means precious about sticking to the point. These forums exist to give people an outlet to rant and rave. It's hardly the Faculty of Social Sciences, now is it? No one getting any marks for being here.

But it does highlight to me how ideologically driven we are - how we all view the world through very particular lenses, and resist at all costs seeing things from another angle. I'm equally guilty of this, and I have to try hard to catch myself out.

I am no more righteous than anyone else. I often find myself using an argument to boost my own ego - rather than uncovering a new (and sometimes threatening) truth.

The danger, I think, is when this ego takes over entirely - when thoughts and ideas are used selectively without any search for understanding - when they actually attempt to reduce understanding and paint others - always others - as the ones to watch out for.

You made a good point in your post. Most people want what we take for granted: the house, the car, and peace. This might well be a platitude, but I think you'll find most of the world has swallowed it.

Got this in an email today.

FACTS TO MAKE EVERY Indian PROUD

India Has 52 Billionaires; Mukesh Ambani Richest
The Top 10 Richest in India are:  (Forbes (2010)
1. Mukesh Ambani $32 billion
2. Lakshmi Mittal $30 billion
3. Anil Ambani $17.5 billion
4. Azim Premji $14.9 billion
5. Shashi & Ravi Ruia $13.6 billion
6. KP Singh $13.5 billion
7. Savitri Jindal $12 billion
8. Sunil Mittal $8.2 billion
9. Kumar Birla $7.8 billion
10. Gautam Adani $6.4 billion



Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard (hp) ?
A. Rajiv Gupta


Q. Who is the creator of Pentium chip (needs no introduction as 90% of the today's computers run on it)?
A. Vinod Dahm


Q. Who is the third richest man on the world?
A. According to the latest report on Fortune Magazine, it is Azim Premji, who is the CEO of Wipro Industries. The Sultan of Brunei is at 6 th position now.

Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail (Hotmail is world's No.1 web based email program)?
A. Sabeer Bhatia

Q. Who is the president of AT & T-Bell Labs (AT & T-Bell Labs is the creator of program languages such as C, C++, Unix to name a few)?
A. Arun Netravalli

Q. Who is the new MTD (Microsoft Testing Director) of Windows 2000, responsible to iron out all initial problems?
A. Sanjay Tejwrika




Q. Who are the Chief Executives of CitiBank, Mckensey & Stanchart?
A. Victor Menezes, Rajat Gupta, and Rana Talwar.

Q. We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America , even faring better than the whites and the natives.
There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). YET,

38% of doctors in USA are Indians.

12% scientists in USA are Indians.
36% of NASA scientists are Indians.

34% of Microsoft employees are Indians.

28% of IBM employees are Indians.

17% of INTEL scientists are Indians.
13% of XEROX employees are! Indians.



Some of the following facts may be known to you. These facts were recently published in a German magazine, which deals with WORLD HISTORY FACTS ABOUT INDIA .
1. India never invaded any country in her last 1000 years of history.
2. India invented the Number system. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta.
3. The world's first University was established in Takshila in 700BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4 th century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.
4. According to the Forbes magazine, Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software.

5. Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans.
6. Although western media portray modern images of India as poverty striken and underdeveloped through political corruption, India was once the richest empire on earth.

7. The art of navigation was born in the river Sindh 5000 years ago. The very word "Navigation" is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH.
8. The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is now k! nown as the Pythagorean Theorem. British scholars have last year (1999) officially published that Budhayan's works dates to the 6 th Century which is long before the European mathematicians.

9. Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India . Quadratic equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11 th Century; the largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Indians used numbers as big as 10 53.
10. According to the Gemmological Institute of America, up until 1896, India was the only source of diamonds to the world.

11. USA based IEEE has proved what has been a century-old suspicion amongst academics that the pioneer of wireless communication was Professor Jagdeesh Bose and not Marconi.
12. The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.

13. Chess was invented in India .

14. Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health scientists of his time conducted surgeries like cesareans, cataract, fractures and urinary stones. Usage of anaesthesia was well known in ancient India .
15. When many cultures in the world were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley ( Indus Valley Civilisation).
16. The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in 100 BC.



Quotes about India .
We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
Albert Einstein.




India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grand mother of tradition.
Mark Twain.

If there is one place on the face of earth where all dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India .
French scholar Romain Rolland.

India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.
Hu Shih
(former Chinese ambassador to USA )



 




--


!!! /-/ /-\ /< /_/ /\/ /-\   /\/\ /-\ T /-\ T /-\ !!!
                         [:P]

---

Bottom line is, if a group of people value some particular skill, they will do well at it. The Indians seem to value money and professional status, more so than traditional caste status. It's an improvement at least. I suspect the professional status bit is a hangover from caste.

I would like to see the ethnic breakdown of the attackers on Indians. I would also like to see the ethnic breakdown of victims of muggings in the policing aeas where Indians have been atacked. Then we can start kicking the right heads.

[quote author=freediver link=1264249831/105#107 date=1265619501]

---

Bottom line is, if a group of people value some particular skill, they will do well at it. The Indians seem to value money and professional status, more so than traditional caste status. It's an improvement at least. I suspect the professional status bit is a hangover from caste.

I suspect so too. It's partly a developing economy thing, but Indians have something many other developing countries don't have. The Indians rate education extremely highly. You'll probably find more post-graduates in India than any country in the world.

When I did my English teaching prac in a selective school and some high achieving classes in another school (in Sydney), Indian students were always a big presence.

I found the Chinese and Vietnamese kids - those from a Confucian background, and Indian and Sri Lankan kids - those from a Vedic background/culture - were the largest ethnic groups in the top classes.

White Anglos were also there, of course. But easily the hardest working kids were the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian and Sri Lankans.

The Korean immigration wave was a bit after my time, but I'm sure you'd see plenty of Koreans there now too.

And they all get flogged mercilessly by their parents - such high expectations. And I think this is partly the reason for the success: very tight family systems.

But the modern media are also right if they portray India as underdeveloped, ful of poverty, and rife with political corruption. It is all those things.

And this is another reason for Indians' successes: the avoidance of dire poverty. Indians are incredibly competitive, and there is always someone to replace you on the heap.

If you can survive the sheer extremes of everything in India: the monsoons, the Indian summers (40 to 50 degrees is normal), the population, the traffic, the regular collapse of essential services; you'll do anything.

So you do.

Australia was no different not so long ago. Now we are used to being rich we are a bit more relaxed about everything.

Quote:

The Top 10 Richest in India are:  (Forbes (2010) 1. Mukesh Ambani $32 billion 2. Lakshmi Mittal $30 billion 3. Anil Ambani $17.5 billion 4. Azim Premji $14.9 billion ..... Q. Who is the third richest man on the world? A. According to the latest report on Fortune Magazine, it is Azim Premji..

Interesting.. 4th. richest man in India, yet 3rd. richest man in the world. At least one of those Indians has to be an extra terrestrial then!

The rate of development is so fast in India now that - apparently - more millionaires are being produced - each year - than the combined populations of Australia and New Zealand put together.

This must be more than 30,000,000 people earning more than one million US dollars each year, added to the 30,000,000 from last year, and so on.

It's just money, of course, but it must mean something.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 7:16pm:

The rate of development is so fast in India now that - apparently - more millionaires are being produced - each year - than the combined populations of Australia and New Zealand put together. This must be more than 30,000,000 people earning more than one million US dollars each year, added to the 30,000,000 from last year, and so on. It's just money, of course, but it must mean something.

It means that you believe nonsense. Being a devout muslim (if indeed you meant that little quip) makes this unsurprising.

The thing I like about you, old boy, is that you're never suprised.

I didn't say I wasn't surprised. I said that believing nonsense and being a devout Muslim is unsurprising. Objectively, like a law of nature.

Speak for yourself Soren.

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 12:22pm:

Speak for yourself Soren.

What? Now you also believe what devout Muslims do?

That doesn't even make sense Soren.

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

That doesn't even make sense Soren.

I am glad it does not make sense to you. I would not want to engage with you in your customary pretends, hair splittings and faux differentiations. Sit back and watch and hope it gets clearer for you or see the end of this threat, dying the way so many others do.

Yep. Looks like a thread ender to me.

When it gets down to futile one-liners about nothing, I'd say we're almost there.

An Indian stabbed two other Indians, thats ok, its not a racist attack, did that make the Indian news or the fool who set himself on fire for insurance, did that make the Indian news and not to mention the hit and run murderer, still on the run in India, take a look in your own back yard India, oh, and your food sucks.

The Indian subcontinent seems to be one of the biggest exporters of volatile, undesirable social conditions in the world. It's basically got a big surplus of that stuff back home.

Australians The Australian Government is buyin!

Which undesirable social conditions do you mean, Imperium?

The weddings, the picnics, family outings at the beach?

I was joking there actually. We do get the creme of the India after all (unfortunately I don't want them either).

How come?

I have already explained numerous times why racially homogenous (though perhaps not on this account) societies are infinitely superior to heterogenous societies, why multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc. (even when drawing from the best biological stocks of different populations) are ultimately divisive, dangerous policies that nobody really asked for in the first place, why, as E.O Wilson pointed out, biological differences correspond to differences in culture; and that I obviously like the culture and unique physical characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon, Caucasoid population, and would not feel things to be ever the same or as desirable if this were to change. What I am saying is normal, natural and healthy; taken for granted by all peoples but browbeaten whites that refuse to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the human race.

I love the Indian people and the fascinating and ancient cultures that exist within the vast Indian subcontinent as well. That doesn't mean I have to want them or their ways of life here. This alone is a perfectly acceptable justification of my views, but luckily, I have a thousand other reasons behind it to further buttress them. ;)

I'm sorry Karnal for resorting to posting a video, but I believe this short speech (Yes, Jared Taylor again.. my apologies) eloquently explains the latter aspect of my previous post more succinctly than my verbose ass possibly could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq-lWU88nSQ


His words are to me, sensible and poignant. I would hope you could understand where I am coming from more by listening to this.

Thanks Karnal. I have a question by the way, are you of Indian descent? Nothing personal; I'm curious actually.

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 3:43pm:

I have already explained numerous times why racially homogenous (though perhaps not on this account) societies are infinitely superior to heterogenous societies, why multiculturalism, multiracialism, etc. (even when drawing from the best biological stocks of different populations) are ultimately divisive, dangerous policies that nobody really asked for in the first place, why, as E.O Wilson pointed out, biological differences correspond to differences in culture; and that I obviously like the culture and unique physical characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon, Caucasoid population, and would not feel things to be ever the same or as desirable if this were to change. What I am saying is normal, natural and healthy; taken for granted by all peoples but browbeaten whites that refuse to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the human race. I love the Indian people and the fascinating and ancient cultures that exist within the vast Indian subcontinent as well. That doesn't mean I have to want them or their ways of life here. This alone is a perfectly acceptable justification of my views, but luckily, I have a thousand other reasons behind it to further buttress them. ;)

Thanks.

Imperium, why are people that feel differently to you 'browbeaten'? Did you stop to think that some people just aren't as shallow as yourself?

Quote:

I have already explained numerous times why racially homogenous (though perhaps not on this account) societies are infinitely superior

Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 4:22pm:

Imperium, why are people that feel differently to you 'browbeaten'? Did you stop to think that some people just aren't as shallow as yourself?

Because for many whites, the reason why they assent to various things is because of inculcation and browbeating. Whatever they profess to espouse is incongruous with their actual activities, whatever they say freely in private kept suppressed, out of genuine fear for the very serious consequences, in public. This is the reality of an all-encompassing societal ethos with utopian designs like multiculturalism-- it depends upon the complete and unwavering participation of those who operate under it; and even if it does not have any success, like Marxism, it seeks to make its population pretend that everything is okay or mentally incapable of perceiving what is plain to see.

Yes, while its most strongest advocates do genuinely believe, many of these people (I am not suggesting you, don't worry) are still caught in sort of a mental trap, like the followers of a religion. By mental trap I am not saying that this means "if you believe in multiculturalism you're trapped and need to be enlightened with my way of thinking"-- this would suggest a mental trap of my own, I am saying that these beliefs occupy a particularly hallowed, unassailable and unscrutinizable position within the mind in a way that no other does. They cannot be questioned and the sociological explanations which they generate do not have viable alternatives; because these alternatives have been characterised and forever sealed to be truly wicked -- racist, the 'heretic' or 'counter-revolutionary' of our time. Due to this, those who do genuinely believe possess the special privilege of having contained within their words and principles a morality the opposing camp lacks. And as a result from this, free discussion is ultimately banished under a pervasive, unspeakable taboo, or, in some countries now (with more to come), illegalized outright.

A little off the discussion, but I think it isn't just this conception that an intrinsic morality is present within the words of the multiculturalist that encases his mind within its mental cage, but there are other psychological factors at play as well. The image of the unenlightened and abhorrent racialist is endlessly juxtaposed in the head of the multculturalist with his own idea of himself. He is educated, intelligent, worldly, experienced and wise**, unlike his opposite, an uneducated, unintelligent, parochical and pitiful specimen in desperate need of his own special brand of improvement. So yes indeed, it is safe to say that it is in many cases snobiness and longing for intellectual status that motivates the multiculturalist.


Quote:

Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

I don't know about that; we've talked about all of this stuff a dozen times before. When you really break this forum down you would get three primary obsessions the memberbase tends to chatter about-- Global Warming, Islam and race. We really need some fresh material.

**

Quote:

23? That explains a lot.

Quote:

Whatever they profess to espouse is incongruous with their actual activities, whatever they say freely in private kept suppressed, out of genuine fear for the very serious consequences, in public.

What are the very serious consequences? You've managed to spout your mouth off with racially offensive comments here and nothing has happened to you. Anybody who is too ashamed to state their beliefs publicly for fear of repercussions is a coward.


Quote:

because these alternatives have been characterised and forever sealed to be truly wicked -- racist, the 'heretic' or 'counter-revolutionary'

You and your views aren't wicked, just narrow-minded. I'm not talking about what you find aesthetically pleasing or attractive - we all have our preferences.


Quote:

He is educated, intelligent, worldly, experienced and wise**, unlike his opposite, an uneducated, unintelligent, parochical and pitiful specimen in desperate need of his own special brand of improvement. So yes indeed, it is safe to say that it is in many cases snobiness and longing for intellectual status that motivates the multiculturalist.

No. While I do think racism is ignorant, I wouldn't say I'm more intelligent or wise than you. I just think you have a f*cked up view of what really matters when it comes to people.

Don't start a new thread then. It will save you having to have your views questioned. I personally don't see how you could possibly justify that without resorting to circular logic.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 9:18am:

You and your views aren't wicked, just narrow-minded. ... I just think you have a f*cked up view of what really matters when it comes to people.

These may or my not be true. But simply asserting that something is narrow-minded and buggered up is no more than vacuous moral posturing.

Quote:

These may or my not be true. But simply asserting that something is narrow-minded and buggered up is no more than vacuous moral posturing.

So when I voice an opinion it's vacuous moral posturing, but when you do it's a pearl of wisdom? You made judgments regarding my character yesterday, but it's different when it's you, right?

I have no interest in debating anything with you, Soren. I've seen the way you operate. More often than not, you avoid the topic under discussion, but pick a sentence out for ridicule. It's impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with people like you and I don't find you interesting enough to waste my time trying.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 18^th, 2010 at 11:23pm:

Quote: These may or my not be true. But simply asserting that something is narrow-minded and buggered up is no more than vacuous moral posturing. So when I voice an opinion it's vacuous moral posturing, but when you do it's a pearl of wisdom? You made judgments regarding my character yesterday, but it's different when it's you, right? I have no interest in debating anything with you, Soren. I've seen the way you operate. More often than not, you avoid the topic under discussion, but pick a sentence out for ridicule. It's impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with people like you and I don't find you interesting enough to waste my time trying.

It is not your opinion that is vacuous.
When you assert that something is narrow minded or buggered up, you have to give reasons. This is what I said - you may or may not be correct but mere asserting is vacuous moral posturing. This is much the same point FD made to you somewhere recently. Just taking the moral high ground is not an argument.
The difference between you and me is that I will tell you why I say or think what I do. So your intuition, that it's not the same when you or I say something, is correct. But now you also know why.

Quote:

When you assert that something is narrow minded or buggered up, you have to give reasons.

I don't 'have' to do anything. You latched on to the tail end of the debate there. I've explained why I find racism abhorrent. Making the same explanations every time I expressed an opinion would be redundant.


Quote:

This is much the same point FD made to you somewhere recently

I didn't see Freediver's comment so I don't know the context in which he made it.


Quote:

The difference between you and me is that I will tell you why I say or think what I do.

I just told you exactly what I think of your debating style and why.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 19^th, 2010 at 12:06am:

I've explained why I find racism abhorrent. Making the same explanations every time I expressed an opinion would be redundant.

Did you? I am sorry, I didn't see it. Would you mind referring me to the post where you explained it?

Quote:

You've managed to spout your mouth off with racially offensive comments here and nothing has happened to you.

I think it should be noted that this forum seems to be extremely lax with regards to allowing people to express their views freely and really can't be used as an example of why the consequences of openly discussing what I talk about cannot be serious. I've been banned from many forums before being ten times as respectful as I am here (not that I would consider being banned from a messageboard serious).


Quote:

What are the very serious consequences?

The answer to this question is clearly dependent upon one's surroundings. Losing one's job comes to mind; I have read an extensive number of antecdotes of individuals doing things completely unrelated to their profession but ending up with their faces on camera or something unfortunate and being shown the door the next day. This is undoubtably more pronounced in the public sector than the private, where presumably contractual allegiance to diversity is an unconditional requirement of one's employment. I wouldn't doubt this really; for instance, in the U.S army, performance assessments consist in part of probing concerning what one thinks of diversity and affirmative action in the services. I don't know how different things are here, but whatever is on the books I am sure you would be buggered if you even came close to speaking about what people like Soren, Sprint, etc talk about here.

In academia, the situation is even more extreme. Academia is a domain of government first and foremost, but is also the brainstorming grounds where the ideas of society are generated for popular consumption. The mild-mannered, peace-loving and extremely eminent Arthur R. Jensen -- perhaps the most seminal and significant psychometrician of all time -- found himself (and probably still does) so cruelly harassed by students at Berkeley university that for a time had to be assigned several bodyguards to escort him around campus. This was after he found the words "Jensen will perish" scrawled above the door of his office. Arthur Jensen is only one example of academics who speak of race ending up at in the crosshairs of those who declare themselves the tolerant ones; death threats, disruption of their classes, attempted physical attacks, you name it. All very serious if you ask me. When those who are supposed to possess the most accepting and scrutinizing of minds are capable of savagery of this nature we know as a society that we are crossing, or perhaps have crossed, the threshold into barbarism.

Politics, even personal relationships I am sure are affected daily by zealous causeheads of this nature. Relationships are bought and sold more than ever before on the basis of what we believe, but because this region is a domain for the enlightened in a way that no other such 'buying and selling' is no doubt more frequent and more severe.


Quote:

Anybody who is too ashamed to state their beliefs publicly for fear of repercussions is a coward.

Disagree. Well, not entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKQ5AHpj5vw&feature=player_embedded

We are all selective racists in someway, whether or not you want to believe it. No person at any stage has not said or thought something bad about another culture or race, if you say you havent, your a liar.

Criticising another culture is prfectly alright and should not be regarded as racist, just as criticising one's own is not racist. Culture is the product of intentional human behaviour and so we are all qualified to criticise all cultures if we are to treat their members are our equal - rather than infantile creatures who do not share our own ability to take responsibility for our actions and customs  (whether we are right or wrong in our judgement of other cultures is another question).

Race, being completely beyond human agency, is is a different matter. It may well be that a  majority of a race adheres to an inferior culture but the individuals of that race must be given the chance to leave or go beyond their culture and individually, adopt a better culture, either ntirely or in parts that are inferior. V.S. Naipaul is my example for this.

Why do you assume that a mixed culture is better, maybe it will lead to a decay rather than an improvement, or does that not fit into calculation.

Quote:

rather than infantile creatures who do not share our own ability to take responsibility for our actions and customs

The problem is that many simply do not. Many of the things we talk about here are simply taken for granted here -- honesty, obligations, responsibility -- but are conspiciously absent from many regions of the world. These can be tricky verbal concepts of a particularly abstract nature, and the capacity for generating abstractions from the environment around you depends not only upon that environment but the individual that engages with it.

The problem, Soren, is you do try to treat a large majority of the world as if it is simply is not infantile. This is not the case. This human race is filled to the brim, overwhelmingly, with those of particularly simplistic, seemingly undeveloped and child-like minds concerned primarily with shallow instant-gratification -- those who are filled with a naive, playful sense of wonder at the mindnumbingly prosaic. You cannot disentangle a culture from predilections such as these, because that culture is ultimately dictated by them; a culture is kept in check by the biological constraints of the people that create it. Being surrounded by the culture of another indeed can uplift and transform a population to some extent, but it is ultimately impermanent and can never truly be fully imparted. And when those others leave and with it their controlling influence.. well, you end up with Detroit.

I have no doubt that in say, 80% of the cases, race and culture run parallel and one is a goodish mark of the other. But I am thinking that if race is used as the only marker for culture, we would not be able to admit to Australia people like Naipaul or Condi Rice or Ayan Hirshi Ali or Wafa Sultan.

There must be another way to weed out undesirables, since colour alone would bar desirables.

I am also a firm believer in the hierarchy of cultures and the vigorous defence of western civilisation. My hunch is that the western guilt-merchants and self-denouncers have a great deal of responsibility for the growth of the underclass in the west, white and tinted, and for multiculturalism.  

My apologies for misinterpreting your own views, Soren.

I do agree with you that there are in some cases some individuals of different races who indeed do possess a genuine admiration for both Western civilization and the Caucasians that developed it. In the grand scheme of things, however, they are rare and far between, which you yourself acknowledge. Theoretically, acceptance of a prospective immigrant on this basis should not be that dangerous for either the further existence of Western culture or White people themselves, because non-whites like this frankly barely exist thus under such a scheme migration would be reduced to a near undetectable trickle rather than the inundation that we are accustomed now.

There are still problems however that may arise even if we do opt to the course of allowing only these minorities, which I myself am wary of. There is also the matter of who we are physically, even more important, say, to the national aesthetic as the architectual designs we use to construct the components of our settlements. Though a tiny number of non-whites would likely not endanger this very much.


Quote:

I am also a firm believer in the hierarchy of cultures and the vigorous defence of western civilisation. My hunch is that the western guilt-merchants and self-denouncers have a great deal of responsibility for the growth of the underclass in the west, white and tinted, and for multiculturalism.

Do you read Theodore Dalrymple, by any chance?

Indians and racism?

Well I have to admit to holding racist attitudes towards Indians.

I stereotype them, because my personal experience has led me to conclude they share some characteristics I do not want to deal with.

I will not behave rudely to strangers, or seek to see them suffer, but I still owe my first responsibility to myself, and because of that, I will not do business with indians, as I cannot trust them.

My personal experience has also been one where I have found they are often very rude, and behave in an arrogant and entitled manner, so as far as I am concerned, I would prefer they were treated like nineteenth century children, seen, but not heard. :D

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2010 at 5:10pm:

Do you read Theodore Dalrymple, by any chance?

Who doesn't??  Of course! And Roger Scruton.

How about this:

No welfare for non-citizens (except say due to accidents), no citizenship for 7 years. Fit in, be a productive contributor or don't even think about it.

Refugees: no citizenship for 7 years or if you had more than 2 years on welfare. If you are not a citizen, your refugee claim (and temporary visa) is to be reviewed every 5 years.

Anyone who breaks the citizenship oath (his promise to AUstralia) by not being faithful to the laws, will be stripped of citizenship (Australia's promise to him).

I'll explain it to you, Soren.

I find racial prejudice abhorrent because I don't think it's fair to discriminate against anybody because of race, sexual orientation or anything else that has nothing to do with whether or not they can be a productive member of our society.

Prejudice, especially based on such superficial things as these is dangerous and unproductive.



Quote:

No welfare for non-citizens (except say due to accidents), no citizenship for 7 years. Fit in, be a productive contributor or don't even think about it. Refugees: no citizenship for 7 years or if you had more than 2 years on welfare. If you are not a citizen, your refugee claim (and temporary visa) is to be reviewed every 5 years. Anyone who breaks the citizenship oath (his promise to AUstralia) by not being faithful to the laws, will be stripped of citizenship (Australia's promise to him).

I agree with all of these except the last one. Once citizenship is given, the person should become an Australian with the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us. What could be done about citizens that were born in other countries who start families here? Would you throw them all out or separate them? Neither seems very fair to the innocent parties involved.

So you reckon that things obtained by perjury (wilful swearing of a false oath) should not be taken away from the perjurer?

There is a differnce between citizenship obtained by birth, a gift of nature if you like, and citizenship obtained by the gift of the law alone.
Come to think of it, citizenship by birth is a lega gift too. For example, people born in various parts of Europe a hundred years ago would have had a few different citizenships in their lifetime, without moving from the place of their birth.

Let's not fetishise citizenship, as if it can be only granted but not withdrawn. It is only a legal construct.

Quote:

So you reckon that things obtained by perjury (wilful swearing of a false oath) should not be taken away from the perjurer?

Immunity from deportation is one of the rights we give upon the granting of citizenship, isn't it? If the PTB are able to revoke it at any point for whatever reason, why guarantee that immunity?

New citizens pledge an oath to uphold the law. If they break that oath, they should be punished like every other Australian, or foreign born citizenship isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 6:31pm:

Quote: So you reckon that things obtained by perjury (wilful swearing of a false oath) should not be taken away from the perjurer? Immunity from deportation is one of the rights we give upon the granting of citizenship, isn't it?

Er.. no, it is not.


Citizenship by conferral
     (2)      The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:      (a)      the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2 (including because of the operation of section 32); and
     (b)      any of the following apply:
     (i)      the person has been convicted of an offence against section 50 of this Act, or section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the person’s application to become an Australian citizen;
     (ii)      the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of subsection (5);
     (iii)      the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of migration related fraud within the meaning of subsection (6);
     (iv)      the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of third party fraud within the meaning of subsection (8); and
     (c)      the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.



http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/659E48238DDD4AE7CA257666001A2FE9?OpenDocument

I should have researched that better. My apologies.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 7:14pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2010 at 6:31pm: Quote: So you reckon that things obtained by perjury (wilful swearing of a false oath) should not be taken away from the perjurer? Immunity from deportation is one of the rights we give upon the granting of citizenship, isn't it? Er.. no, it is not. Citizenship by conferral      (2)      The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:      (a)      the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2 (including because of the operation of section 32); and      (b)      any of the following apply:      (i)      the person has been convicted of an offence against section 50 of this Act, or section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the person’s application to become an Australian citizen;      (ii)      the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of subsection (5);      (iii)      the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of migration related fraud within the meaning of subsection (6);      (iv)      the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of third party fraud within the meaning of subsection (8); and      (c)      the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/659E48238DDD4AE7CA257666001A2FE9?OpenDocument

Can you explain what the timeframe on this is? You obviously can't 'uncitizen' someone who has nowhere else to go.

Quote:

(c)      the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

Damn, that is a pretty "open to interpretation" catch all to have as a criteria for revoking somebody's citizenship.

It is one which could be used wisely, or opportunistically, depending upon the whim of who makes the decision.

Even with that, it is still nice to at least feel as if we have some say over who does or does not stay in our country.
I immediately thought of how much "public interest" there is in us having people with DUAL citizenship, an issue that has annoyed me for a long time.
We see fair slabs of our money going overseas in the form of pensions, to many people who have obtained aussie citizenship, whilst retaining citizenship oftheir former country, applying for, and receiving an australian pension, and then going back to their original country to live permanently there, whilst we support them.
I am absolutely dead set against this practice, and would certainly vote to have it stopped, if given the opportunity to do so.

When we are generous enough to give people public money to support themselves, it does not seem unreasonable to want to see that money spent here in australia, helping our economy, rather than supporting people who have no real allegiance to australia, useing it to support a lifestyle overseas that they otherwise could not afford.

So ban dual citizenship altogether, and remove the loopholes in our system that sees us supporting "strangers in a strange land".

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2010 at 9:43pm:

Can you explain what the timeframe on this is? You obviously can't 'uncitizen' someone who has nowhere else to go.

Not sure, but I remember a case when Kevin Andrews was Immigration minister where a young guy was sent back to his place of birth, Turkey.

He came to Australia when he was about 2, knew no Turkish, and was extradited for pretty wimpy crimes. He had an intellectual disability and knew no one in Turkey.

The US brought in similar laws after Sept 11. Long term residents have been extradited for marijuana posession and a whole host of petty crimes.

They're silly laws meant to get rid of terrorist suspects, but in the US, people who have lived there for years - with families and kids - have been rounded up and evicted for next to nothing.

Soren, I believe you're an immigrant. I'm sure you've broken the odd law (or by-law) in your time. We all have.

But I doubt anyone here would demand that you get sent back for not picking up your dog's crap in the park.

Here's the current Australian pledge of allegiance:


From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.


You can say it  with or without the words 'under God'.


Lines 2-5 especially are irreconcilable with strongly held islamist views. You trip up on those pledges and your presence is contrary to the public interest.
Pretending that these ideas are on the same level as a council by-law about dog sh!t will allow you to snigger, Karnal, but you will still be wrong, whether you know it or not.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:51pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2010 at 9:43pm: Can you explain what the timeframe on this is? You obviously can't 'uncitizen' someone who has nowhere else to go. Not sure, but I remember a case when Kevin Andrews was Immigration minister where a young guy was sent back to his place of birth, Turkey. He came to Australia when he was about 2, knew no Turkish, and was extradited for pretty wimpy crimes. He had an intellectual disability and knew no one in Turkey. The US brought in similar laws after Sept 11. Long term residents have been extradited for marijuana posession and a whole host of petty crimes. They're silly laws meant to get rid of terrorist suspects, but in the US, people who have lived there for years - with families and kids - have been rounded up and evicted for next to nothing. Soren, I believe you're an immigrant. I'm sure you've broken the odd law (or by-law) in your time. We all have. But I doubt anyone here would demand that you get sent back for not picking up your dog's crap in the park.

I bet you'll find the Turkish guy was not a citizen, just a permanent resident. I believe if you are a permanent resident you have to commit crimes that carry a penalty of more than 12 months jail or have spent more than 12 months in jail to be liable for deportation.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 3:12pm:

Here's the current Australian pledge of allegiance: From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. You can say it  with or without the words 'under God'. Lines 2-5 especially are irreconcilable with strongly held islamist views. You trip up on those pledges and your presence is contrary to the public interest. ...

Folk born here don't have to pledge nor obey any rules, so they think.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 1:51pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2010 at 9:43pm: Can you explain what the timeframe on this is? You obviously can't 'uncitizen' someone who has nowhere else to go. Not sure, but I remember a case when Kevin Andrews was Immigration minister where a young guy was sent back to his place of birth, Turkey. He came to Australia when he was about 2, knew no Turkish, and was extradited for pretty wimpy crimes. He had an intellectual disability and knew no one in Turkey. The US brought in similar laws after Sept 11. Long term residents have been extradited for marijuana posession and a whole host of petty crimes. They're silly laws meant to get rid of terrorist suspects, but in the US, people who have lived there for years - with families and kids - have been rounded up and evicted for next to nothing. Soren, I believe you're an immigrant. I'm sure you've broken the odd law (or by-law) in your time. We all have. But I doubt anyone here would demand that you get sent back for not picking up your dog's crap in the park.

Sounds pretty harsh. We mustn't use this as an excuse to offload our problems onto other countries. It would be like a return to the convict days - transported for stealing a loaf of bread.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 3:18pm:
I bet you'll find the Turkish guy was not a citizen, just a permanent resident. I believe if you are a permanent resident you have to commit crimes that carry a penalty of more than 12 months jail or have spent more than 12 months in jail to be liable for deportation.
[/quote]

You're right. I think he was. In Australia I think the policy is at the behest of the Minister.

In the US, I believe it's in the hands of the judicial system.

That's what happens when you get a Bill of Rights.

But it sounds like it's become a very administrative process with mandatory expulsion for felonies in the federal juristiction, often for crimes that go back years and where the penalty was served long ago.

I guess that's what happens when a certain president goes against a Bill of Rights.

I was out with some mates the other night. After a few beers, some of them wanted to bash on with some curries.

I said I'm not getting involved. All that tumeric and corriander, it gets all over your hands.

Curries are a filthy lot. Many of them shouldn't have been let into the country. It doesn't matter which ingredients you take out - there's so many of them.

Send them all back to curryland, I say, where they use the right hand for eating and the left hand for wiping. Curries keep you so busy eating and wiping there's no time for anything else. That's why lunch takes about 3 hours and the women are all chained to the pot.

I dont understand this. Being from NSW, is there some anti-Indian sentiment down there that we are nto aware of in the rest of Australia?

Or is this some pakistani / muslim thing against hindus?

Why Indian Students are disliked abroad. ..... .......?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192180659/180#191

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Why Indian Students are disliked abroad. ..... .......? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192180659/180#191

Ha! Very true! I think I've met this student.

Check out this you tube video, sorry I don't know how to add a video, ( I will give it a try), but here is a link if it doesnt work.

I think it is their "Taxi Driver" training school. ;)

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

That's just warming up. For this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM&feature=fvst