UK 'second most popular country'

bendix

Generali wrote: »

As you may be aware, I worked as a Uni tutor for a time and pretty much all of my students were Asian nationals studying in Australia for the first time.

To generalise, the Indian students were disproportionately likely to live in rougher areas (eg Harris Park), travel late at night on public transport and carry items of value with them. As you say, they also apparently had a reputation as a soft touch among the muggers of Sydney especially if they were roughed up a bit. Students from other parts of Asia were more likely to live centrally and so leave valuables at home before going out in the evening.

In ninky's world, muggings on people below five foot four would be sizeist

Jonbvn

ninky wrote: »

i think it should be wrong to voice a homophobic or racist opinion.

Please enlighten me as to who will decide which opinions are racist or homophic? Perhaps a forum of Gruaniad readers, now that their outreach coordinator jobs are no more?

Clearly, what you propose is morally bankrupt on so many levels, it just isn't worth debating.

bendix

Don't you read Jon? It's clearly homophobic if you dare to ask a difficult question or refuse to accept whatever the proponents say as gospel. If you don't fawn to us, you clearly hate or are afraid of us . . that's ninky's line.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

What other topics would you like to have banned from public debate?

If you ban people from discussing things you disagree with you are setting off down a very dangerous path.

I'm with Voltaire on this one. This Socialist thing of not allowing dissenting views I find very frightening.

i did not say ban the topic from public debate. a public debate is a very different context to discuss such matters and so long as they are put up against challenging views in a managed debate that's fine. but i don't think someone expressing a racist or homophobic view in passing is acceptable. for example a boss making a racist remark to an employee or a shop assistant making a homophobic remark to a customer.

obviously the judge of whether the remark is racist or homophobic must be the courts / law just as with other actions that are deemed unacceptable by society.

you often find the remarks are also accompanied by actions.

i find it a bit pukesome to be honest that the people here defending the right to express homophobia and racism are white heterosexuals themselves.

go on and have your dig about guardian readers again though. so very very amusing.

ninky_2

surely judging that indian students are a soft touch for muggings is actually a racist judgment in itself? unless there are statistics that prove that indians are less likely to fight back during an attack than any other ethnic group?

sounds like a very poor excuse by the police to me. "oh they just get attacked more because they are a soft touch".

bendix

You haven't yet shown that the views you quoted are homophobic.

The interviewer was questioning the rectitude of overtly sexual behaviour in a public parade (something that wouldn't be tolerated by heterosexual, but which is defended because it's part of gay culture), and he asked a probing question about why the need to push gay marriage?

How is that homophobic?

I'm looking forward to your reply.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

surely judging that indian students are a soft touch for muggings is actually a racist judgment in itself? unless there are statistics that prove that indians are less likely to fight back during an attack than any other ethnic group?

sounds like a very poor excuse by the police to me. "oh they just get attacked more because they are a soft touch".

As has been explained - and you refuse to accept - they HAVENT been attacked more. They are attacked because they live in the area. There is no evidence that indians are attacked anymore than any other group, and to apportion the attacks to some kind of racist campaign is - ipso facto - racist on your part.

They are attacked because they are living in an area where attacks are common. Whites are attacked too. And women. And small people. And old people. And chinese people.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

You haven't yet shown that the views you quoted are homophobic.

The interviewer was questioning the rectitude of overtly sexual behaviour in a public parade (something that wouldn't be tolerated by heterosexual, but which is defended because it's part of gay culture), and he asked a probing question about why the need to push gay marriage?

How is that homophobic?

I'm looking forward to your reply.

have you seen the rio carnival? or even the average hen party out in leicester square? i can think of plenty of overt displays of heterosexual behaviour i have seen in public.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

have you seen the rio carnival? or even the average hen party out in leicester square? i can think of plenty of overt displays of heterosexual behaviour i have seen in public.

OK . .let's cut to the chase? Have you been to the Sydney mardi gras. In person? At night?

I have.

Anyway, it's not about if it's overtly sexual or not. It is about if the reporters' comments are intrinsically homophobic if he is questioning the appropriateness of the behaviour.

And, according to you, even having the effrontry to question it is akin to homophobia (hating and fearing gays).

In other words, if you don't immediately accept everything we do and applaud us for it, you hate us.

purch

male homosexuality was still illegal in Queensland until 1990 and after that in Tasmania

Do you mean, that after Queensland legalised it, Tasmania the decided to make it illegal :eek: