Sunday, 23rd November 2008
Racist discrimination in Paceville
On November 8 I was in Paceville with a Ugandan friend, who has been living in Malta all his life. He is black, and unfortunately because of this he cannot move freely in and out of bars and clubs as I did as a teenager.
At about 12.15 a.m. we tried to enter a bar called Republik. I went in but a bouncer stopped my friend.
When I asked what was wrong, the bouncer quickly replied: "We don't let blacks and Arabs in!" adding that it was an order from management.
I said I would report the incident but he didn't seem to mind this (probably because he knew it wouldn't be taken seriously).
My friend was not angry or surprised in the least. This was not the first time it happened to him. I went to the police van in Paceville and told a police officer there. His reaction was one of complacency and passivity.
He just said it was not his 'department'. He said he couldn't even take the report because he didn't have a computer, so he told me to go to the St Julian's police station.
Another black man from Nigeria overheard me talking to police and told me that the same thing had just happened to him, only in another place. So this clearly is not a one-off incident.
This is happening in nearly all the clubs and bars in Paceville. What shall we call it? Segregated entertainment or nightlife for the few? What if we apply this rule to any foreigner who comes to Malta? After all, a foreigner is different and what managements are scared of when they don't allow blacks and Arabs inside their clubs is just that. Aren't Spanish or Russian youths different to Maltese? Shall we leave all the English-language students who come to Malta in the summer out in the cold? No, we don't, because they're not black.
My friend did not accompany me to the police station, where I went to report the incident. I gave all the details.
The police officer took down some notes using pen and paper, no computer required (as the other policeman had told me). He simply remarked that since my friend did not come to the police station no action could be taken. Had he done so, he continued, the police would have gone to the bar and asked the management why they were doing this.
So does that mean that stopping Arabs and black people entering into clubs is justified? And is it because they might cause trouble? I cannot keep count of the numerous times I saw Maltese starting a fight in a club, or English people fighting in a pub.
I feel very strongly against racism and this is not easy in a country where the police force is complacent about racism.
Who shall I turn to for solidarity and support when the institutions meant to protect citizens take no action when immigrants are involved?
This incident would not have been tolerated by the authorities in any other European country. I am not saying that racism doesn't exist outside Malta but there are measures in place to try and prevent it. If we are to take our EU membership seriously then we have to apply EU laws on discrimination and racism.
RSS
Comments
It's nice to be back on good terms with you Kenneth, but anyway, we almost always tend to agree in principle but disagree only on the details. I have no problem with diverging opinions, on the contrary I find it stimulating but next time WE should try not to get too personal and focus more on the subject at hand.
The only difference I see between the health-insurance example you gave and the case of banning certain races is that the health-insurance companies can do what you mention legally. Also, there is a higher probability of serious illness increasing with age, while there is not a higher probability of being violent that increases with the darkening of the skin.
But yes, I can understand that racist bar owners do not necessarily hate black people (although they might), but only discriminate because they wrongly assume the probability of blacks and Arabs being violent to be greater than that of other people, as well as judging a whole race or nationality by the actions of a few.
I don't think that these managers don't want to let in blacks because they hate blacks but because they believe that blacks and arabs are much more likely to cause trouble. Health insurance companies act in a similar way, they don't insure old people not because they hate old people but because they consider them to be at a higher risk. The English solved their hooligan problem by banning entrance to persons into any football stadium if they caused trouble in the past. I think something similar should be implemented in Malta for those that cause trouble in bars and other entertainment establishments. This way, these managers would be legally able to ban entrance to certain people on the base of their demerits and not their skin colour.
I only get worked up on unfair comments such as "you have missed the whole point". I hope that I have made it clear that I haven't missed the point at all.
Regarding your not being too concerned about racist discrimination, that's not my concern, unless of course you discriminate yourself, which I don't suppose is the case.
Regarding the bouncers having a job to do, this is not about the bouncers. They do what they are told. This is about a racist management policy. The above letter is clear about this, and so yes, the management in this case is turning away paying customers.
Regarding past experience they might have had with "certain races", this is exactly what makes the management racist. You can't judge a whole race by a few incidents. I have seen several fights in bars involving only Maltese people, but I have yet to see a bar banning the Maltese.
As for rather drinking in a place you know is safe, that would have to be your living room. Whenever you go out, you are taking risks. And I hope you don't believe that the Maltese are immune to violence.
I think that finally we have found some common ground.
"According to the general definition, 'racism' is only about race but 'racial discrimination' is also about ethnic origin, nationality etc".
Yes, I think I agree with you here. People have nowadays widened the scope of racial discrimination to include ethnicity and nationality. That said, what really matters is not what we call the discrimination, but whether it is discrimination. In Mr Formosa's case, it would appear that he was discriminated against, no matter what we call the discrimination.
"I don't believe that racism is 'inherently evil'. I think it is inherently instinctive".
Again, I probably agree with you, except that I would say that racism is inherently "evil". It is racists who are not necessarily so.
I generally try to avoid using the word "evil", since evil involves conscious knowledge that what one is doing is actually morally wrong, which many times is not the case.
For example, one such race are the Australian Aboriginals who presently are about half a million strong. Members within this race possess a unique attribute that allows them to produce artworks that no other artist from other races have been able to emulate. Some of these works have, in recent years, been selling at around 50K (occasionally much higher) apiece at international auctions.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that unique attributes which differentiate one race from another exist, and hence the "belief" is well founded. The crux of the matter, then, is this.
During the many years of living in Australia, never have I been aware of a member of the Australian Aboriginal race claiming to be "superior" to other races on the basis of these unique attributes. Hence I have no reason to regard Aboriginal Australians "racists". Unfortunately, however, this may not always be the case with members of other races.
According to the general definition, 'racism' is only about race but 'racial discrimination' is also about ethnic origin, nationality etc.
"Name a country where racism is not present, its built into us all, its just suppressed some of the time, because it not always politically correct."
I don't believe that racism is "inherently evil". I think it is inherently instinctive.
"Once again you have missed the point"
What point have I missed?
"Racism is not only about race!"
Oh yes it is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
"the only way they could have judged me is by my name"
It appears so. So yes, by what you write, it would appear that you were discriminated against, and the reason could have been racist. Some people do not see Maltese as "whites".
"racism is a form of discrimination"
That's what I have been saying all along.
"You think the world is perfect and only in Malta is racism present"
No I don't. But since I live in Malta, I try to improve Malta and the Maltese.
"you have been sheltered for too long from the real world!"
Now THAT is what I call prejudice. You don't even know me, and yet you deduce that I am both "sheltered" and been "too long from the real world".
"Name a country where racism is not present"
Probably there isn't one.
"its built into us all, its just suppressed some of the time"
I make a distinction between preferring "one's kind", and discriminating against those whom we see as different.
Here is what wikipedia says regarding your point.
"The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life
According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".
There are many types of discriminations. For example, discrimination based on the colour of the skin is called racism while discrimination based on your gender is called sexism. If for instance you're not employed just because you're from Cottonera, is just as bad as if you're not employed just for your skin colour. If I correctly understood you, your point is that no matter what a type of discrimination is called, all forms of discrimination are equally unjust but we are being led to believe that only racism "inherently evil".
Once again you have missed the point,
Racism is not only about race! - the only way they could have judged me is by my name, racism is a form of discrimination.
You think the world is perfect and only in Malta is racism present, you have been sheltered for too long from the real world! Name a country where racism is not present, its built into us all, its just suppressed some of the time, because it not always politically correct.
I do go to Paceville and do witness these crimes. But as this letter says, the police don't take any action. I've also witnessed 4 thugs beating up a black person and the police arresting...surprise, surprise, the black person only.
However, I do take direct action by personally boycotting racist bars.
Fair enough, and true most police do nothing about it, but there are exceptions, believe me.
I think the best action is filming. the situation. It's not always easy I know, but once a clip is uploaded on the net, no one has an excuse for not taking action.
Boycotting racist bars is good, but I think not enough
I think you are missing the point actually. Racism is about race. However ir is not simple black or white. For example Jews who are white are one of the races that has been discriminated against by other white people.
Apart from racism, there is still discrimination based on something apart from race, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability etc.
For a healthy society any type of discrimination, race or not, should be abolished
Over the phone, I give my name as Summit. It always works.
"You are so worked up about racism..."
I'm not worked up at all.
"...that you have missed the point, racism happens in many forms, it could be racism over colour, the place you live, your surname, you name it -it happens"
Racism is only about race. The rest is discrimination, but it is not racism.
"I applied for a job in UK years ago and over the phone gave my name and address only, I received a letter weeks after, informing me that I was not suitable, how did they judge me - by my name or address?"
If I were to give you my opinion after reading only the information you give, I would be prejudiced myself. If this had dappened recently, I would suggested that you ask for an explanation.
But still, I don't get your point. Injustice is injustice, wherever and for whatever unjustifiable reason it happens.
You are so worked up about racism that you have missed the point, racism happens in many forms, it could be racism over colour, the place you live, your surname, you name it -it happens, I applied for a job in UK years ago and over the phone gave my name and address only, I received a letter weeks after, informing me that I was not suitable, how did they judge me - by my name or address?
It hurts even more when that person is your boy/girlfriend or husband/wife. It's happened to people I know too.
"Maybe you should go to Paceville and witness and report these crimes to the police".
I do go to Paceville and do witness these crimes. But as this letter says, the police don't take any action. I've also witnessed 4 thugs beating up a black person and the police arresting...surprise, surprise, the black person only.
However, I do take direct action by personally boycotting racist bars.
Oh yes, especially bouncers and club owners.
Cont...
"For you, either it's black or white, no shades".
It is the management policy that makes it black or white.
"You always go to extremes so that the subject in question may be classified as either evil or holy".
"Extremes" has become a convenient phrase, I see. However, calling something extreme does not prove it to be so.
"This is my LAST comment here cause with you there can be no compromises".
In matters of justice, there cannot be compromises. Anything less than complete justice would be injustice.
"NO, but Patterns show if it is more likely or less likely to be true".
Not necessarily. Let's take the case of olympic runners. It could equally be the case that more black people choose to train for the olympics, or that they work harder at it. If one claims that the trend shows a genetic superiority, one should back this up by scientific evidence, and not simply by means of trends which could be composed of multitudes of factors.
"Hence, before you call him "idiot", you should have solid evidence to substantiate your claim that his belief is incorrect, otherwise you are just being prejudicious".
Extraordinary claims (like the claim of racial genetic superiority or inferiority) require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan once said. The onus is on him to provide the evidence that it is genetic.
"You say that now their human rights are violated because they can't enter since there is a bouncer with a racist policy at the door".
The letter clearly shows that the policy is not of the bouncer, but of the management.
"But with your brilliant idea, STILL they wouldn't be able to enter because they would find the door barred!"
So the owner of the illegal bar should continue to operate illegally and in violation of human rights. Interesting.
"If 99% of the establishment is ok"
The establishment is 100% not ok, since it is the policy that is illegal. If anything, it should change owners, but this cannot be done unless the owner chooses to sell.
"we only need to ditch the racist policy from the bouncer's instructions list and both whites and blacks would be able to enter".
Good luck in trying to do that.
"Of course you might claim that my analogy is exaggerated."
Indeed it is. You don't have a sense of proportions or measures. For you, either it's black or white, no shades. You always go to extremes so that the subject in question may be classified as either evil or holy. But I am not surprised, I already foretold you that fanatism leads to extremism. This is my LAST comment here cause with you there can be no compromises. I will leave you to meditate on where extremism might lead you.
"Patterns do not prove"
NO, but Patterns show if it is more likely or less likely to be true. Hence, before you call him "idiot", you should have solid evidence to substantiate your claim that his belief is incorrect, otherwise you are just being prejudicious.
"you failed to acknowledge that your suggestion that I lied was mistaken"
You wrongly thought that I care more about a bottle of beer than preventing racial discrimination and I wrongly thought that you were inventing definitions.
"However, in the non-admittance of black people, we are dealing with gross violations of human rights. That is why I strongly believe they should be closed down."
You say that now their human rights are violated because they can't enter since there is a bouncer with a racist policy at the door. But with your brilliant idea, STILL they wouldn't be able to enter because they would find the door barred! My point is that you should aim your laser only towards the cancerous cells and not destroy the whole human body. If 99% of the establishment is ok, as in the case in subject[1], we only need to ditch the racist policy from the bouncer's instructions list and both whites and blacks would be able to enter. No need of burn and raze extreme measures.
[1]The evidence reported by the above article doesn't in any way indicate that inside these bars there's some form of activity going on that might not be suitable for blacks like racial songs or whatever. It suggests that what happens is the norm: "This is happening in nearly all the clubs and bars in Paceville"
One last comment on your non-valid Ferrari analogy. Seemingly to diminish the gravity of a racist policy (as applied to bars), you ask whether a Ferrari with a front lamp not working should be impounded or its owner simply fined.
Well, to "prove" my point (actually I wouldn't), I could ask if a Ferrari with its seats filled up with cocaine should be impounded by the police or the driver simply fined.
But again, we are debating a human rights violation issue here. So an appropriate analogy would be with a case where a bar, for instance, provides the service of prostitutes brought in through human-trafficking. Should such a bar be fined, or closed down?
Of course you might claim that my analogy is exaggerated. I would concede this point, but at least my analogy is about human rights not minor misdemeanor, like a broken headlamp.
"Immagine that my ferrari (Nixtieq!) is illegal i.e. with only one front lamp working, would you punish the owner with an ever escalating fine until he repairs (legalize) it, or would you label it "evil" and dump it in a car junk?"
Your analogy is not valid. It would be if it was made comparable to a bar not having its interior furniture (including the sound system, for instance) according to legal specifications. However, in the non-admittance of black people, we are dealing with gross violations of human rights. That is why I strongly believe they should be closed down.
One question: Do you believe that entertainment establishments (such as bars) who sell illegal drugs, should be fined or closed down?
Before saying (if you are) that selling drugs is worse than not allowing black people in, remember that no one is forced to buy drugs.
If, on the otherhand, you do not believe bars selling drugs should not be closed down, then that is another matter, and I'll simply agree to disagree.
If an entertainment establishment has an illegal policy i.e. a one colour human filter fitted at the entrance, you mend that policy and not bring down the whole establisment. IF the law really says otherwise, it is one of the many unjust laws like the sexual harassment or the coming muzzling law. Immagine that my ferrari (Nixtieq!) is illegal i.e. with only one front lamp working, would you punish the owner with an ever escalating fine until he repairs (legalize) it, or would you label it "evil" and dump it in a car junk?
"Nothing contrary to a good healthy laugh. But before you prejudiously label him idiot, I suggest you to take a look at the history of the 100M Olympic races and check if there is a pattern first".
Patterns do not prove racial superiority or inferiority.
"I guess you also would laugh at the "idiot" who would say that he thinks that men are superior in strength, speed, height and weight to women".
Yes, if he/she claimed that all men are superior in strength, speed, height and weight, I would most certainly laugh.
"And you failed to admit that you politely implied that I care more about a bottle of beer than preventing racial discrimination"
Did I really? I don't think so. In any case, whether I believe you care more about drink than discrimination is an opinion. Whether I lied or not is a statement of fact. It is no matter of opinion - either I lied or I did not. I proved that I did not, and you failed to acknowledge that your suggestion that I lied was mistaken. So much for admitting mistakes.
"You have your opinion and I have mine on the magnitude of the ideal punishment".
That bars operating illegally as a matter of policy should be closed down is not a matter of opinion. It is the law.
"I hope that if you illegally park on a double yellow line, your car wouldN'T have to be scrapped".
It is not my policy to park on double-yellow lines, and I never do. But if I ever did, I would simply be fined, since I would not be running an illegal business like illegal bars with illegal policies.
"and would laugh at the idiot who expresses them"
Nothing contrary to a good healthy laugh. But before you prejudiously label him idiot, I suggest you to take a look at the history of the 100M Olympic races and check if there is a pattern first. I guess you also would laugh at the "idiot" who would say that he thinks that men are superior in strength, speed, height and weight to women. And while you are at it, why not laugh too at the feelings of an agoraphobic? My point is that no matter how disgusting or stupid you find the feelings or opinions of others, as long as they aren't clearly hurting anyone, we should tolerate diversity in all its forms.
"But I wouldn't go further"
Works for me.
"Yet you fail to admit that you implied that I was lying when I most certainly was not, as I have proven."
And you failed to admit that you politely implied that I care more about a bottle of beer than preventing racial discrimination:"You'd rather enjoy your drink while people are discriminated against." Infact I wrote:"We should work towards an open entrance to every race, rather than denying entrance to everyone." That should suffice.
"Bars breaking the law every day would have to be closed down, whether you like it or not, and irrespective of whether they will spoil your fun."
You have your opinion and I have mine on the magnitude of the ideal punishment. We agree to disagree on this point. I hope that if you illegally park on a double yellow line, your car wouldN'T have to be scrapped, so as not to "spoil your fun." I would wish you instead a less 'black' punishment like a fine, so you get into line, next time.
"Also you justified the closing down of these "1 or 2" bars for the whites...."
Pause for a moment, and realise that you are opposing the closing down of illegal bars. Bars "for the whites" are illegal. If it were a one-off thing, a penalty would perhaps be sufficient, but you yourself describe them as "bars for whites" - therefore by definition, illegal bars. But let's proceed.
"...with the excuse that it's not a problem for them cause they just had to "cross the street and visit another bar". But when I used your same "just cross the street" argument to show you that if it isn't a problem for whites to cross the street, likewise it isn't a problem for blacks, you went to the extremity of implying that I am an "evil" racist:"you have exposed yourself".
I did not go to any extremity. The two are not comparable. My suggestion is to close illegal bars. Yours is that all illegal bars should be left open (unless you're discriminating in favour of this type of illegality only) and only fined.
Some things ARE "black or white", such as bars operating illegally as a matter of policy.
"Persecuting people just for expressing their racist beliefs/opinions -without inciting violence- or just for expressing their xenophobic feelings IS witch-hunting. Not only that, it also IS undermining freedom of expression of opinion which in turn leads to the undermining of Democracy".
I would not persecute anyone, but if racists express opinions which promote discrimination and injustice, then the police would by right and by law prosecute (not persecute) them.
"And you would rather enjoy labeling your countrymen: "rabid racist", "Bigots" etc while they express their genuine concerns about this "National crisis", just to increase their frustration, as if it wasn't enough already".
Like I said countless times, I only call racists those who are racists. People worrying about immigration need not (and most are not) be racists.
Regarding bars, I won't waste any more time. Bars breaking the law every day would have to be closed down, whether you like it or not, and irrespective of whether they will spoil your fun.
I simply give more weight to justice than to a bottle of beer.
"My implications were based on my dictionary's definition. If and ONLY IF my dictionary (Wordweb -Princeton Universtiy) was incorrect than so was I. You see Kenneth, unlike you I admit my imperfections".
Yet you fail to admit that you implied that I was lying when I most certainly was not, as I have proven.
"You ARE intolerant of racist's opinion so much that you would like to muzzle them from expressing their beliefs".
I am as much intolerant of racists' opinions as much as I (and presumably you) am intolerant towards people expressing opinions in favour of paedophilia, rape etc. All are repulsive and thankfully expressed racist opinions will soon join the other two in becoming illegal.
"...but let us for example say that Mr Xyz says: 'I think that race A is aesthetically inferior' or 'I think that race A has a genetic advantage in sprint races', would you tolerate these racist opinions even though they are not inciting any violence?".
Since the examples you give do not by themselves promote discrimination, I would see them as ignorant opinions (that they are), and would laugh at the idiot who expresses them. But I wouldn't go further.
In my first comment on this blog, I condemned this blatant racial discrimination and described it as an injustice. But you're so fanaticaly anti-racist that went to the extreme of calling me a "racist apologist" just because as a punishment I suggested "would be punished with an escalating fine for each time he breaks the law" instead of agreeing with your "close them down" solution.
Also you justified the closing down of these "1 or 2" bars for the whites with the excuse that it's not a problem for them cause they just had to "cross the street and visit another bar". But when I used your same "just cross the street" argument to show you that if it isn't a problem for whites to cross the street, likewise it isn't a problem for blacks, you went to the extremity of implying that I am an "evil" racist:"you have exposed yourself".
Fanatics can't accept the idea that in reality almost nothing is either completely black or completely white. Trying to depict everything as either evil or holy is dangerous and leads to extremism. Fanatism is a slippery slope towards a perpetual fall into a bottomless pit.
"It's not a witch-hunt...it's justice"
Persecuting people just for expressing their racist beliefs/opinions -without inciting violence- or just for expressing their xenophobic feelings IS witch-hunting. Not only that, it also IS undermining freedom of expression of opinion which in turn leads to the undermining of Democracy.
"You'd rather enjoy your drink while people are discriminated against."
And you would rather enjoy labeling your countrymen: "rabid racist", "Bigots" etc while they express their genuine concerns about this "National crisis", just to increase their frustration, as if it wasn't enough already.
"I did not change the definition. I only used part of it because the other part did not apply then. In this case, it does."
It didn't apply then because you were trying to convince me that you weren't a bigot. You knew that the conveniently omitted part would nail you down. "intolerantly devoted to his own opinions" and "intolerant of those who differ" You ARE intolerant of racist's opinion so much that you would like to muzzle them from expressing their beliefs. Here I'm NOT talking about incitement to violence -which I'm against-, but let us for example say that Mr Xyz says: 'I think that race A is aesthetically inferior' or 'I think that race A has a genetic advantage in sprint races', would you tolerate these racist opinions even though they are not inciting any violence?
"Yes, you did imply that I was a liar"
My implications were based on my dictionary's definition. If and ONLY IF my dictionary (Wordweb -Princeton Universtiy) was incorrect than so was I. You see Kenneth, unlike you I admit my imperfections. I am not a fanatic bigot. But anyhow, thanks to the fanatic anti-racist's campaign of demonization, I won't be surprised if one day, searching for the definition of "Demon" in a new dictionary, I find: 'an ardent racist' and for the word "racism": 'the source of all evil'.
"Kenneth if you believe that we should burn at the stake the "evil" racists and xenophobics, you are free to believe so and rest assured that I will not persecute you for your opinion or thoughts".
A typical straw-man argument. No, I do not believe we should burn anyone at the stake. I only believe that people found guilty of racial hatred and incitement to violence should be prosecuted. I also believe that illegal places of entertainment (such as those adopting racist policies) should be closed down. That should suffice.
"But don't pretend me to join you in this medieval holy war -or should I say witch-hunting?"
It's not a witch-hunt...it's justice. And no, I don't expect you to join me. You'd rather enjoy your drink while people are discriminated against.
"I'm against racism. However I am also against the hypocrisy of the anti-racism crusaders who spread hate and prejudice against other groups, even if these groups are not race-based".
I am not a hypocrite, and I do not spread hate and prejudice. If you're speaking of someone else, please address them directly.
"I checked your above link and here is the FIRST definition I found....Hence, what I implied isn't that you're a liar, but you conviently chose not to use the first definition even though the first one listed is the standard one".
Yes, you did imply that I was a liar. Here's what you had written: "You are just inveting new definitions for this insults...". Now you know I did not invent definitions. The definition I used is in a dictionary. That should suffice.
"...using your definition, I can call you a bigot, because you are intolerant of those with racist opinions/feelings. Remember Kenneth, everything you say may be used against you".
No, you cannot use the word against me. I am not intolerant against people with racist opinions/feelings, as long as they keep them for themselves. If bigot were to be applied to any form of intolerance, it would apply to people who oppose those who write in favour of child abuse, rape, etc.
"I don't see it evidenced in your claim that we shouldn't close racist bars down"
Kenneth if you believe that we should burn at the stake the "evil" racists and xenophobics, you are free to believe so and rest assured that I will not persecute you for your opinion or thoughts. But don't pretend me to join you in this medieval holy war -or should I say witch-hunting?
"But then again, perhaps it is useless arguing with racist apologists"
I'm against racism. However I am also against the hypocrisy of the anti-racism crusaders who spread hate and prejudice against other groups, even if these groups are not race-based.
"Bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot"
"Please check your facts before implying that I am a liar."
I checked your above link and here is the FIRST definition I found:
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Hence, what I implied isn't that you're a liar, but you conviently chose not to use the first definition even though the first one listed is the standard one. But anyhow, let us for a moment use your definition: "...intolerant of those who differ". By using your definition, I can call you a bigot, because you are intolerant of those with racist opinions/feelings. Remember Kenneth, everything you say may be used against you.
@ Kenneth Cassar
‘It's not about creed or opinion...its actually worse...its about the colour of their skin.’
Full mark .
Here is self-made racism check list
Immagnie you just look at a group a group of people without talking with them you will never know any of the following
- Their religion
- Place of birth
- Legal status
- Finical position
- Health status
- Intellectuals level
If you become aversion to a group of peoples simply because of their skin color this is a racism
@ Debbie Tully
While I feel sorry to what happened with your son, I sympathy with your Husband. I sincerely hope by implementing the new laws racism will be mitigated in Malta.
By the way, using "crusade" by its modern definition (look it up...maybe you'll find this one in your dictionary), which is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse", yes, you can call me an anti-racist crusader too. This is because I do not simply pretend that my blood boils when I learn about injustice...it really does, and I do something about it.
But then again, perhaps it is useless arguing with racist apologists. What's certain is that you'll probably hear me laughing from wherever you may be when the anti-racism act gets through.
"Injustice makes my blood boil under my skin".
I don't see it evidenced in your claim that we shouldn't close racist bars down (so that we do not spoil people's fun), and that if black people are not allowed in, they should go somewhere else.
"You shouldn't let the anti-racist crusaders keep on brainwashing you".
You shouldn't let the racist crusaders keep on brainwashing you.
"As you clearly saw, there is not any mention of ethnic or racial groups. You are just inveting new definitions for this insults so as you can have an excuse to apply them to those that you want to stereotype. This is what I call demonizing"
Bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
Need more references?
Please check your facts before implying that I am a liar.
"It is also important that you remember that to convince me that you weren't a bigot -see the blog 'Yes Indeed'- you used the above definition, but now you conveniently changed it".
I did not change the definition. I only used part of it because the other part did not apply then. In this case, it does.
"Why do you go out of your way to excuse or defend racist bigots?"
Injustice makes my blood boil under my skin. That is why I am against extreme measures that are not proportional to the truth.
"Also, don't you think you have exposed yourself by saying that..."
Get a grip Kenneth. If you really were a good listener, and not obsessed with racsim, you would have understood that my point was that if this number is negligible for the white clients, it is also negligible for the blacks.
"You should have been more careful about what you write"
You shouldn't let the anti-racist crusaders keep on brainwashing you.
"Should they be excused just because they are racist bigots?"
I already made myself clear that I am against racial discrimination and in favour of reasonable punishments.
"Note the final part of the definition"
I noted that part and it is NOT what my dictionary says, i.e:"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"
As you clearly saw, there is not any mention of ethnic or racial groups. You are just inveting new definitions for this insults so as you can have an excuse to apply them to those that you want to stereotype. This is what I call demonizing. It is also important that you remember that to convince me that you weren't a bigot -see the blog 'Yes Indeed'- you used the above definition, but now you conveniently changed it. As you once told me in 'Do we let them drown?': "You should be consistent to be credible."
Also, don't you think you have exposed yourself by saying that "If this number of establishments, as you said, is so negligible, why you insist on wanting to close them down "just so that blacks do not have to cross the street and visit another bar"?
You should have been more careful about what you write.
"If this number of establishments, as you said, is so negligible, why you insist on wanting to close them down?"
For the simple reason that they are breaking the law every day. Should they be excused just because they are racist bigots?
And why you called these owners "bigot"?
The full definition of bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
Note the final part of the definition. I call them bigots because they are bigots.
"Do you have any proof that their problem is with ANY differing creed, belief or opinion?"
It's not about creed or opinion...its actually worse...its about the colour of their skin.
Now here's a question from me. Why do you go out of your way to excuse or defend racist bigots?
"The places of entertainment whose owners are clearly racist are a minority (maybe one or two)."
If this number of establishments, as you said, is so negligible, why you insist on wanting to close them down "just so that blacks do not have to cross the street and visit another bar"?
And why you called these owners "bigot"? Don't you remember your own definition of "bigot"? You wrote: "The definition of bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" Do you have any proof that their problem is with ANY differing creed, belief or opinion?
The places of entertainment whose owners are clearly racist are a minority (maybe one or two). Closing one bigot's establishment won't deprive anyone of entertainment or "stress-escape-valves".
"So what do you suggest should be done?"
As I already said, we need justice not extreme measures. By justice I mean that we should punish the real culprits and NOT the innocent Maltese clients by depriving them of their entertainment -or should I say their stess-escape-valve?. I suggest that the bar owner that breaks the law would be punished with an escalating fine for each time he breaks the law. This means that the first time the fine to be paid is small but increases progressively each time the law is breaked. This way the owner will finally have to capitulate.
So what do you suggest should be done? I don't suppose you believe that the law may continue to be broken on a daily basis just so that you do not have to cross the street and visit another bar.
"By closing these establishments you not only are denying entrance to black people, but also to all Maltese who already have a limited choice..."
I'm interested to know what is your positon on bars that habitually sell drinks to minors. Do you also think these should not be closed because "Maltese already have a limited choice..."?
"Closing down a racist establishment is not an extreme measure."
I disagree. By closing these establishments you not only are denying entrance to black people, but also to all Maltese who already have a limited choice where to have some fun during the weekends. We should work towards an open entrance to every race, rather than denying entrance to everyone.
If you were told "go home Wog", it was a racist who told you so. I'm sure you didn't like it, so why should you excuse it?
As for "its just the way things are, and as the saying goes if you don't like it you can leave!", don't you think this applies equally to racists?
Closing down a racist establishment is not an extreme measure. Denying entry to anyone without a valid reason is illegal, and this does not apply only to cases of racism.
Kenneth, we need justice not extreme measures. This applies to both ant-racism and anti-illegal immigration measures.
I return home regularly, and I have my mother there, where refugees arrive on her beach. But if you don't get on top of basic racism as is described in this article, in the way you might find through the laws and accompanying laws I refer to, you may find the incidents become more and more severe and you will come to an act that as Maltese we will all be sorry about. I hope there can be further action (I am sure there is already, even though it might not be evident at the present) to address this as it is obviously worrying and sad for all concerned and dangerous for the community-all of it. Today it is blacks and Arabs and tomorrow?
There are some racists here do not openly express to a foreign immigrant (in any colour) that they are not welcome but attack them from the back, putting them into lots of hassles to have things clarified. This always happens when a 2-face racist in disguise play victims and some even use their tears as weapons. (Leave this all to your imagination.)
However, prejudice and nepotism happen so often that further victimising the actual victims...
Well, since then we have had this "true" democracy, but it effectively meant that especially the whites, but also the Coloureds and Indians, have been pushed one side by the very large majority of blacks and we now have apartheid in reverse. The government calls it "affirmative action". Don't understand me wrong, I am not against measures to rectify what was wrong in the past, but, and this is my point: There will always be incidents of racism in the world and no measures will ever eradicate it. Incidents must not be condoned but brining about racial equality must be dealt with in a FAIR manner.
The truth is that no one would like to become a minority, whether in a street, in the village, in the city or in an entertainment locale. No laws can erase this in the minds. Try to immagine an Italian, Maltese or other non-african continous influx into Africa, what the reaction would be.
Deep down, this is a sad case, cause the man in question is no illegal immigrant, and probably escaped the harsh Amin regime, and such refugees came in Malta in pre-established one-off numbers.
Today the situation is much different, and exacerbated by illegal immigration. Statistically proven, at least half of those landing here have no case. But here they remain.
The Maltese feel threatened, and rightly so. Rule of law, for everytihng.
High time you had a law against racism and xenophiobia.
The survey cannot be taken that seriously because we have thousands of illegal immigrants and people answer on the reality they are living.
Apart this fact, it is only human nature, that the majority feel more comfortable with people who are like them. That doesnt mean you hate others. There is nothing wrong, that you prefer your people more then others.
@ malcolm seychell
Surveys carried out by Sociologist Mario Vassallo show that 97% of the Maltese are not what you are saying. By the way , the surveys were about LEGAL IMMIGRANTS of different – race – creed or colour!
Our politicians should act together and pressure the EU to help us not just through financial aid. They should also legislate following Australia's example. The people are tired of experts that tell them that Europe needs immigrants, to which they reply why they don't come and take them, if they need them.
BTW just wondering... How do the Maltese recognise an "Arab"? As even to me (a perfectly average and rather pale Central European) it has happened more than once to be mistaken for an Arab (and once even warned by a waiter in a restaurant: "Dan mhux tajjeb għalik, fih il-ħanżir" :-o), they can't be particularly good at that...
We should not also forget that there were some other establishments where patrons were admitted in accordance to their pockets or social standing and no one complained.
And why are you so shocked by your friend being stopped? Have you by any chance just landed in Malta from your spaceship having lived on another planet for the whole of your life?
"And is it because they might cause trouble?"
Yes, I think that they think that these "blacks and Arabs" are much more likely to cause trouble than the others, but even if this belief is really the case, still it is unjustifiable and it is pure racial discrimination.
Now to be objective, when one reads the newspapers observes that a large part of crimes reported, are made by foreigners, even though these foreigners form only a very small percentage of the country's population. For example yesterday was reported "Jailed, fined and barred from driving" and "Ethiopian migrant faces string of charges". But still, even if one could statistically prove that foreigners are more likely to cause trouble, this still is discrimination, and above all an injustice.
Go try your luck and enter in some pubs controlled by other races in the UK or any other place in Europe and see how you will end up.
It is thanks to the mass influx of illegal immigrants, that these things are happening.
When I was still 18 alot of US Marines (many blacks) used also to come to Paceville.
However they hardly got into any trouble and most Maltese had quite a good relation with them. So Maltese are not racist, but they cannot tollerate certain cultures and attitudes which now we are facing every day.
Maltese always tollerated every race but in controlled numbers.
It is true Maltese are afriad of the situation and I say rightly so.
It is up to the government to start controlling the situation and not to club owners or the man in the street.
And yes however i call it a safe place for entertainment instead of nonsense!
This is what happens when the wrongdoing of some reflects negatively on the whole lot. The Maltese society is made up of quite & hard working people and the latest experience of watching illegal immigrants roaming our once peaceful streets is causing rage towards the authorities!
Malta cannot cope with these thousands of illegals, the Maltese are crying over the situation because no one (racist or not) wants an illegal immigrant roaming around his household whereas the govt seems that his only aim is to integrate them in the Maltese society.
As if we want them to do so!
these things have been going on for years and no one seems to take any note, police force more than anyone.
As i said a million times thanks to illegal immigrants, even the legal people of colour or Arabs who live in Malta are suffering because of them.