Sunday, 5th October 2008
ABJECT APOLOGIES
My attention was drawn, on Friday morning to the fact that I haven’t written anything fresh for a considerable time.
This is true and I have little, if any, defence to the charge of indolence. I shall, to use Victorian phraseology that so irritates the more excitable of the ladies and gentlemen of the press, essay (or is that assay?) a few sallies in my own excuse, such as the fact that I was busy writing the outline of the words of wisdom that, in my real life, I delivered of myself before the nation’s learned beaks.
Anyone who knows the way I work, though, will immediately see through this, as, although a degree of care must be taken when doing one’s job in such exalted company, it isn’t a task that should take up all my writing time.
I could also, though I doubt I shall do so with any degree of conviction, plead that so many people have been having so much fun with the previous edition of this blog, with comments flowing thick and fast (elevating me once again to a very creditable mid-table ranking in the “most commented” league) that I was loath to deprive them of their forum.
To which, I am morally convinced, you’ll go “yeah, right” and invite me to tug on the other one, the one that goes ding-a-ling.
Then there’s the argument that I’ve been having one of those weeks, the sort of thing that happens to all of us some of the time. What with Chelsea doing their best to justify a sponsorship from Pfizer or whoever it is that produces Valium and with the horrendous traffic making it impossible to get to the various places I had to be without ulcers being given fertile ground, the only thing I felt like doing whenever a few spare moments presented themselves was vegging out.
But, to be quite honest, which many Lil’Elves will think is pretty much an impossibility, the real reason why I haven’t blogged is that there’s been little to inspire me. In fact, if you cast your eyes upwards, you’ll see that there’s precious little that has inspired me even now.
I mean, for Heaven’s sake, what is there to write about? OK, fine everyone is up in arms because it’s going to cost a heck of a lot more to fire up anything electric, but until we find oil anywhere other than under a leaky sump, there’s precious little that can be done, though perhaps what little can be done could be done better.
But then, I’m no economist, so who am I to lay down the law on that one? Let’s agree that it’s the Government’s fault, shall we, and save ourselves having to think about the real world?
Then there’s Joseph Muscat’s egress from one Parliament and ingress to another, in that order, with Joseph Cuschieri doing what his brother should have done long ago, but for different reasons. Whereas (E)manuel Cuschieri was honour (!) bound to call it a day many years ago (about the time Labour suffered one of its electoral defeats, though I wouldn’t blame you for not knowing which one, there were so many) brother Joseph had little – relatively speaking – for which to do so. He was an Onorevoli and thus prone to hyperbole and adding to the world’s quota of hot air, but in this he was no more and no less culpable than most of his colleagues.
Still, someone had to make way for Muscat and it seems Mr Cuschieri drew the short straw. But there was precious little to inspire me in that story, though, and commentary on Muscat’s image projection at his swearing-in didn’t strike me as being something that would make a good blog, for all that there was ammunition there if I felt like it.
Going beyond our shores, as we should from time to time lest we fall into the trap of believing Malta is, in fact, the umbilicus of the world, the prospect of anything fun to write about recedes further and further into the pale blue yonder.
In the States, it remains possible, and terrifyingly so, that a bible-bashing, barely coherent, red-neck soccer-mom will find herself a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Given George Dubya’s performance, you might have said that a tough act to follow this was not going to be, but if that woman is anywhere near the seat of power come ’09, we’re going to look back on the last eight years with a fond recollection of the good times.
Over on this side of the pond, while the Europeans faff about trying to convince themselves that all this economic turmoil is all the fault of the nasty Yanks and that the Russian Bear is still the warm and cuddly soft-toy they thought it had become post-Glasnost, Gordon Brown is setting up the Brits for another bout of Thatcherism with a softer image, which might not be such a bad thing.
So there, friends, you have it. I haven’t mentioned immigration and bigotry, so the revoltingly rabid racists won’t be able to make nauseating excuses for themselves while calling me an immigrant lover.
You know the ones I mean, the ones that start “I’m not a racist but …”
It seems these fools haven’t learnt, yet, that when you start out with this statement, right-thinking men and women everywhere, even if they haven’t heard of William and his small ham, wonder whether the person concerned doth, indeed, protest too much.
I believe that in one particular case, the statement was made in good faith: I’m referring here to Joseph Muscat’s saying that he is not a racist while encouraging the Government not to sign up to the EU’s immigration pact or whatever it’s called. I doubt Muscat has a racist bone in his body, so he must have meant what he said.
Many others, however, do not convince me that they mean it when they say they’re not racist, because what they often go on to write demonstrates otherwise.
RSS
Comments
"We don't know if this is true: there might have been other reasons such as low exam grades."
Correct. But that is irrelevant, because that is not the point.
"The Courts did not uphold their plea and found that the university had not done anything wrong."
Correct again. But you missed the point again. The point IS the REASON why the courts "found that the university had not done anything wrong." So let me quote the reason:
"The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that schools may continue to consider race as a determining factor in admissions decisions,"
Is this REALLY that hard to understand? Ok, let me decrpyt the meaning for you. This means that schools CAN discriminate on a racial bases. Hence it is IRRELEVANT IF the 2 persons were not admitted just because of their race, because EVEN if that was the case, positive discrimination, is considered lawful and positive.
I invite you to meditate on what CHARLES J BUTTIGIEG said in his 1st post on this blog:
"In the case of institutional racism, certain groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment"
Its all a question of interpretation, but since I already said that I disagree with positive discrimination and see it as unjust, I think this answers all your questions.
Now if you want to continue nit-picking, suit yourself.
"One of the definitions of the word 'rather' is 'more properly or justly; with better reason'. That is the sense in which I used the word 'rather' "
And that definition was what I had in mind too. Hence, do you REALISE the gravity of what you said? Do you REALISE what you said translates into?
"Very good explanation regarding positive discrimination. To add to your comment, I would rather work towards equal opportunity than positive discrimination" -K Cassar
This translates into: 'working towards equal opportunity is more properly -or more justly- than positive discrimination'.
This in turn translates into: 'positive discrimination is proper or just but working towards equal opportunity is more proper and more just and hence I would prefer the latter'.
Who is the real Kenneth: the one that said: "we should expose racists. You cannot and shouldn't reach compromises" "Racism is wrong without question" or the one that said: 'positive discrimination is proper or just' ?
From a fervent anti-racist (or supposed one) like yourself I expected you to take an unequivocal and utter stand against positive discrimination without "compromises" or reservations.
The website of your link gave a sketchy story that does not really prove what you were saying. Is this the best case you could find?
There were two persons who did not make it to an exclusive US university and claimed that it was because of racial discrimination. We don't know if this is true: there might have been other reasons such as low exam grades. The Courts did not uphold their plea and found that the university had not done anything wrong.
To come back to Malta, in the 70s and 80s there was discrimination (not positive) against would-be university students who had been to Church Schools but there is no chance of it now as the university accepts all students who have the necessary academic grades (apart from mature students).
What made it seem like you are for positive discrimination is your saying that "When you bring in people who are to a disadavantage, you must make it up somewhere to level the playing field" and "Why shouldn't Farsons hire (immigrants) before Maltese".
But perhaps you're still undecided on that issue.
You say that you "do think that we should tear down some barriers for Maltese in a lower education to enter the University".
I think that this suggestion would not work, even if fairness was not taken into consideration. What makes you think that people who fail to do well in secondary education (or primary) would actually do well in university? It would be a waste of time and money, even for them. The only fair option is for each child to be given the opportunity to keep trying at the educational level he/she is stuck upon. Only if he/she manages to do well should one proceed to the next level. To do otherwise simply would not work.
One of the definitions of the word "rather" is "more properly or justly; with better reason". That is the sense in which I used the word "rather".
Regarding your comment on what happened to Mihajlovic, I must admit that I missed it (perhaps because it was addressed to Charles and I was in a hurry). Now that I read it, I must say that you are perfectly right.
I did understood it the first time. I am a good listener too. And Yes, I was somewhat unfair with you. But let me explain why.
"Very good explanation regarding positive discrimination. To add to your comment, I would rather work towards equal opportunity than positive discrimination" Rather? RATHER!!??!!
WHERE IS the Kenneth that said: "I shall not stop my 'holy crusade' and 'persecution' against those who promote injustice"
"Because racism is an extreme" "Racism is inherently evil, and decent human beings will never accept it." "we should expose racists. You cannot and shouldn't reach compromises" "Racism is wrong without question"
And then you say RATHER!!??! Did you read my last 2 posts? WHY didn't you condemn what happened to Mihajlovic? Not even one word of disapproval!! Is this because he has white skin?
@Antoine Vella
I forgot to make quotes to my 1st paragraph. Did you left-click on the link? DO YOU KNOW NOW about positive discrimination applied to education? Do you know now who the real racists are?
Also, could you please make up your mind regarding positive discrimination? In your last post, you seem to be all against it, while in the one before that, you seem to be all in favour, and criticise me for being against it.
Can you provide any references where we may check on your claims regarding the benefits you mention?
Why does a refugee, asylum seeker, irregular immigrant or illegal immigrants get money every week and free housing though they have 4,000 Euro + in savings and a Maltese can't collect relief if he/she has 4,000 Euros+ in savings???
Could it be the beginning of affirmitave action or positive discrimination?
By the way, have you not noticed that Denis Catania is actually IN FAVOUR of positive discrimination? So why ask ME if this is the "justice" I am fighting for, instead of asking it to Denis Catania?
You ask me: "One day our children, even if they achieve better results/marks, will be discriminated just because of their non-black skin colour. Is this the justice you are fighting for Kenneth?".
I believe I already made myself clear that I consider racial positive discrimination to be racist. I also already made myself clear that I am against positive discrimination.
So why the question, dear David. Is it because you had not understood the first time, or is there some other motive?
I do not know of any positive discrimination anywhere in the world being applied to education at any level. The idea is that education should be accessible to everyone so there is no point in having pos. disc.
You don't know, or you don't WANT to know? Do your research next time (or ask someone who lives in the usa), and you will realise who the real racists are. Here is a link for you:
http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_affirmativeaction/affirmative_action_and_college_admissions.html
Let me quote a couple of sentences :"The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that schools may continue to consider race as a determining factor in admissions decisions,"
"There is a misconception Michigan had to do away with considering race, but the reality is the court basically said affirmative action should remain. We are committed to building a diverse class."
Affirmative Action is the same thing is positive discrimination. They just changed the name to hide the real meaning.
Catania was right. One day our children, even if they achieve better results/marks, will be discriminated just because of their non-black skin colour. Is this the justice you are fighting for Kenneth?
Very good explanation regarding positive discrimination. To add to your comment, I would rather work towards equal opportunity than positive discrimination - and this applies to all levels, including education and employment.
Take for instance positive discrimination in favour of women. I believe that positive discrimination is in this case as much insulting to women as it is unfair towards more qualified candidates. Its like saying "you wouldn't have gotten the job if you weren't a women...you're not that good".
On the otherhand, if you provide for childcare, maternity leave (without losing the job or future promotions), and fair selection in the interviewing stage, this would place both men and women on an equal footing.
If you see an ever increasing deficit, interest on interest, your future tied to an entity whose board of directors had to resign in toto in 1998 due to irregularities, which does NOT keep double entry accounts and whose auditors have since 1998 refused to sign off the accounts as a good place to be....
who am I to tell you you should be worried?
If I ran a company like that and assured people that all was well as we are in a 'massive market' (albeit not in a position to compete and without any say as to how the comapny is run)...
I know EXACTLY what my shareholders would do to me...
And they'd be RIGHT.
So, if you're happy then I'm truly happy for you! I on the other hand sincerely sleep a bit less easy.
And as always the (near) future will tell.
I can already hear the standard excuse coming out..... "When we went into it we didn't know that such-and-such would happen".
And people will nod their head in agreement and give their blessings.
How different thing's would be if Labour were not in govt..!!
;)
Cont...
Regarding picking up garbage forever, no, I would expect that people who, for instance, are qualified doctors, should have an opportunity to work as doctors. But this would not be positive discrimination. It would be employment according to merit.
You say that "Your kids will have to pick up their garbage one day. It's only fair". Well, if that's all they can do, or all they wish to do, then so be it. However, if they would have a good education and choose a different job, they would not pick up garbage.
Why should they have to score the same in a English test as Maltese students to go to the University?. Simple. The reason is that if we enter into university people with a low level of education, it would be a waste of time and money, both for them and the taxpayer.
Denis Catania, you have a lot to learn about the real world.
No, its not called affirmative action. Its actually called positive DISCRIMINATION.
If they are capable, they don't need discrimination in their favour. Whether "they" will ask for it, only time will tell. I wouldn't be surprised. Race is not the only issue where positive discrimination is applied.
Regarding whether I would be able to stop it, that is besides the point. I can't stop all evil dictatorships, but that does not mean that such dictatorships would be good.
Regarding level playing fields, I'm sure you'll know that several Maltese people are greatly disadvantaged because of their low economical status and their upbringing. What shall we do about them? Shall we employ as managers people who can't even read and write, just because "its not their fault"?
Cont...
Yes, "bible thumper" is usually used as a taunt towards people who would vehemently promote Christianity (note the word "vehemently")
Vehement: Characterized by rancor or anger; violent: vehement hostility.
That's the kind of religions people I would call "bible-thumpers". It has nothing to do with the religious content and all to do with the attitude.
Regarding censorship of comments, I've had some posts unpublished, and didn't see them as offensive either. It's a question of opinion and perception.
What makes you think he can't answer my question? What persecution do you have in mind? It's not like it would change my perception of Denis Catania to a great extent. The way I see it, it's like we live in different universes, and to every yes I say, he says no (and vice-versa).
If he answered yes (you will see that he did not, he avoided a straight answer), it would mean that yes, he does consider all black people to be inherently inferior to whites, and that would make him racist. It wouldn't be "inciting racial hatred". There IS a difference. But he didn't give a yes answer, because presumably he does not believe it to be so.
"When a person or an affinity group had suffered from discrimination their past hardship has to be compensated..."
The past has nothing to do with positive discrimination. For example, in year 2000 Patrick Vieira(dark skinned) insulted Sinisa Mihajlovic(white skinned) during a football match by remarking:"gypsy s_it" and Mihajlovic in retaliation to Vieira's remarks called him "black s_it". These remarks are EITHER BOTH racist remarks OR BOTH not racist remarks. Infact I will quote your words to prove this: "There is no difference between racial discrimination [and] ethnic discrimination". In simple terms both insults are equivalent. But the punishment they received WAS NOT equivalent. Mihajlovic was crucified by the media (labeled racist and much more), banned for 2 matches and was obliged by eufa to publicly apologize in front of millions of people. Vieira, on the other hand, was not punished -or humiliated- at all. Type Sinisa Mihajlovic on wikipedia for more info.
Today, racism in practise -not in theory, and hence not just ideas but actual discrimination- exist only in one direction. Discrimination in one direction is considered very bad, but in the other direction is considered good, alias positive discrimination.
In some countries positive discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities (or gender) is applied to help break racial stereotypes and allow the members of those minorities to overcome certain artificial socio-economic barriers. It has nothing to do with the different intellectual abilities of the individual.
In a society where there is no significant prejudice against minorities, there is no need for positive discrimination.
I do not know of any positive discrimination anywhere in the world being applied to education at any level. The idea is that education should be accessible to everyone so there is no point in having pos. disc.
At any rate, I rather agree with Kenneth that positive discrimination is not the ideal means of achieving social justice and equality. It should be the last resort and other non-discriminatory methods would be preferable and should be tried first.
Sure, times are tough due to the credit squeeze and oil prices, and the illegal immigrant problem is a big drain on resources. These are external factors, not of our making. Possibly some things could have been done better - granted. But, overall, we are well placed to weather the storm and can look forward with optimism to better times, as long as we work together and stay grounded.
Glad we agreed on something! I always respect people who are ready not only to stick to their guns in an argument, but also to admit to mistakes.
Not to belabour the point, however, but from the Encarta dictionary:
Bible-thumper
Bi·ble-thump·er (plural Bi·ble-thump·ers)
noun
Definition:
vehement promoter of Christianity: a committed Christian whose outspoken evangelizing is regarded by some as extreme ( slang ) ( offensive )
Note the "offensive". Incidentally, the first "See also" link on the wikipedia page where you got your definition is "Anti-Christian discrimination". So there. :-),
On a different note I wonder why the Times censor (I intentionally use that work and not "moderator" since censorship and moderation are different beasts) chose not to allow my previous comment on this thread - it contained nothing offensive. I was under the impression that the Times was better than that - apparently I was wrong.
Beware Denis before answering Kenneth's question, because he is ready to jump on you (if you answer yes) and may label you racist for the rest of your life.
@Kenneth
You see Kenneth what I meant by freedom of expression? He can't answer your question and tell you what he really thinks because of the fear of persecution. That's what I meant when I said 'suppression of the flow-of-the human thinking'. If he answer yes to your question, he will be expressing an opinion that can be considered as racist. Now imagine he answered "YES", would that be inciting racial hatred to you? I don't think so. That's why I said in the previous blog that society should not limit which opinion to expressed, but in which way to express it.
Are you saying that unless they are given an advantage over white people, black people cannot be equally or more capable than whites? Is this what you mean by "This is the only way, if one day Malta wants to give an opportunity to non whites"?.
Chris - that IS my point which you seem not to be getting/avoiding: all present REALITY indicates that this is where we are.
NOW.
Unless you're convinced that our economy is great of course!
And here I am not talking about 30 years ago. Or ten years ago... but TODAY.
>Today's issues are not "how will I survive without employment, water, freedom . . . etc" They >are, rather, "Which of the hundreds of opportunities here and in the EU shall I take"
Very very many would disagree with your point of view!
- Very many are not /will NOT survive.
- As to the HUNDREDS of opportunities, we've been hearing that "they'll flood us right here in Malta the minute we sign the assention treaty" ie even before we joined the EU.
You do remember right?
That was what 8-9 years ago right?
Have I missed something...?
Where ARE all the people knocking on our door waiting to get in & invest?
Where IS all the investment....?
(cos if it was coming we wouldn't be in this mess, right?)
You agree we're in amess right?
It's good to finally agree on something ;)
Yes, I would say that a policy that specifies that a percentage of those employed must be of a particular race, irrespective of qualifications, is by definition a racist policy.
"Positive discrimination aims at giving equality to those who are disatvantaged due to natural...factors."
Good Chris, you are on the right tracks. Now let's mention an example: a law/rule states that at least 15% of entries in college must be of race C. Even if race B students got better marks. (similar cases like this really exist in countries like usa)
So now ask yourself, who are the real racists? Remember what you said i.e. "disadvantaged due to natural factors". Isn't this another way of telling that race C is inferior "disadvantaged" and hence must be positively discriminated to equal race B?
While you ponder on this keep in mind the definition of racist: 'someone who believes that race C is inferior to race B' and discriminates on a racial bases.
Dear Ivan, if Malta being reduced to a Third World flea-pit, run by a ramschackle bunch of hangers-on with questionable views on democracy was acceptable to you, it's not surprising that you take three longwinded interventions to say . . . very little.
Today's issues are not "how will I survive without employment, water, freedom . . . etc" They are, rather, "Which of the hundreds of opportunities here and in the EU shall I take"
There is a slight difference, no?
@ Chris Ripard...well some are calling Bush socialist haha, but than those kind of people see socialism in most of their opponents....http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6531.html
The Minister telling us that the present state of affairs was not envisaged by the then same govt.
Where they only seeing one WEEK ahead without seeing the economic situation 6 months down the line???
And - more importantly - does that mean that I dont get those light bulbs I was promised???!!
X'mars bar , mars bar!
If Joe promises ME light bulbs, guess who'll be getting my vote!!
Never mind the economy: why worry about such trivial points - THESE are today's issues, Chris.
hahahaha ...
Regarding Dr Borg Cardona's reference to Joseph Muscat, I don't think it was "cryptic intimidation". I think it was more like giving Joseph Muscat his due, since Dr Borg Cardona probably believes (like I do) that Joseph Muscat is not a racist. Then again, usually the phrase "I am not a racist" does ring alarm bells, although, as Dr Borg Cardona says, this is not the case with Joseph Muscat.
Regarding "positive discrimination", I tend to agree with you. Although good arguments may be brought up in support of it (like, for instance, to revert past injustice), positive discrimination is still discrimination since it seeks to reverse past injustices by discriminating against people who had nothing to do with the past injustices themselves.
I would rather work for equal opportunities without any discrimination of any kind.
1) Yep Chris, I guess you're right: € 11,647.00 on each head ( be it a baby, child, teenager, adult, or pensioner) is worth it , if it means we can eat as many mars bars as we wish...
2) Problem is: how long will you be able to AFFORD your house (let alone the TV and choclate) for?
3) Huge gap in your 'history' between the dezerta days and today... iva ghadkhom issemmu, d-dezerta u l-mars bars , Chris?!!
What about the DEBT that has accumiliated since, the present state of the ecomnomy, the total sellout, and the no solution to be seen anywhere...?
What about all the investment abroad (those who can afford it!) that has just been WIPED OUT : some peoples life savings.... POOOOF!
I wonder what's more important to me right now?
Mars Bars or my future?
Work? I'd rather be sailing!
(without a rudder)
;)
Long time...!
Whatever intervention you wish to categorise it under, I still seeing it being done by the govt.. ie govt intervention which, in turn translates to CENTRAL control... which in turn is socialist policy.
Re deserta etc... we are now:
- 2 BILLION Lm (sorry € 4,658,746,797.00) IN DEBT, paying interest on interest and the counting is getting bigger
- economy in shambles
- ever increasing deficit
- ever increasing job losses (where IS all that investment 'the minute we join EU??)
- with no assets to speak of
- house repossessions on the increase
- even the construction industry has halted
- no real decision making power (not even who enters our shores legally or otherwise)
- disasterous medical system with ever increasing waiting lists for VITAL operations & ever increasing 'out of stock' free medicine
- Afghanistan style roads
- a social security system that's about to collapse
- no clear solution as how to solve the problem that is getting worse...
Is this a cryptic intimidation? Because to me it sounds like you are warning him that for this time he will pass but next time he takes a similar firm stand against this 'national crisis' you will stick up his...... front, one of your negatively-charged labels: racist, xenophobic and the like. Hope I got the wrong impression.
@Charles J Buttigieg
"Everyone is entitled to rights without distinction of any kind, such as race" "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination "
Are you serious? Ever heard about 'positive discrimination'?
Regarding "redneck", after due consideration, I will readily admit that the use of the term by Dr Borg Cardona was an unfortunate one. Although I think of the term as referring to "low intelligence", I think the proper definition would refer to socio-economic status, which does not necessarily translate to low intelligence. Therefore, I would avoid using such a term.
See...I acknowledge mistakes and readily admit them. Although I do not use the term "redneck", on due consideration I believe it was a mistake on my part to try to justify it. The reason for my mistake was that since I do not use the term, I never bothered to check on its full meaning and history.
That said, nobody's perfect, but what makes one different than the rest is when acknowledges and does not persist in making (or defending) the mistake.
In any case, since it was Dr Borg Cardona who used the term "redneck", perhaps he could give his own justification or explanation for the use of the term.
Apparently you don't know the meaning of "bible-bashing", or you wouldn'd have said that to call someone a "bible-basher" is to denigrate her religion.
Bible bashing (also called Bible thumping) is a term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their Christian beliefs upon those who do not share them.
Regarding "redneck", I already pointed out my mistake in your regard. I also acknowledge that to call someone a "redneck" is derogatory, but it has less to do with social status and more to do with ignorance.
Socialist intervention was import substitution of real chocolate/toothpaste with 'Deserta/Jif, quotas on (under 2 litre cc) cars, one type of colour TV, all banking in Government hands, a monopoly for Air Malta, same for fuel, telecommunications and broadcasting, bulk-buying, tax on computers . . . all consigned to the dustbin of history, disowned even by the party that instituted them (or so they say), thank goodness.
Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. People with racist beliefs also hate certain groups of people according to their social class, political and religious groups. In the case of institutional racism, certain groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment. Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people. There is no difference between racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, political discrimination and class distinction except to hypocrites.
Most of us see and touch it every day, we try to justify some of it, yet publicly we all oppose it. That is hypocrisy.
"f you knew the meaning of "bible-bashing" and "redneck", ... are rednecks)."
I know perfectly well the meaning of "bible-bashing" and I stand by what I said. That you or ABC are secularists does not give you the right to denigrate another person's religious beliefs (and "bible-basher" is a derogatory term) no matter how fundamentalist you may think they are, at least under the PC ethos.
Not that I am a believer in PC, mind you, but dear old Bocca is all about having a sense of humour isn't he? I guess you ought to try one out yourself, just for kicks (a sense of humour, that is).
Neither did I imply that "redneck" was a "racist" comment, btw. It is, however a derogatory one based on social status and social origins. Frankly, I do think you have to do some pretty meticulous hair splitting, if you are defending ABC on the "redneck" thing, unless that is, your fraternal sentiments only extend to one particular class of people.
you are automatically labelled as racist.
In any case some of us figured it out quite a while ago.
Dr Borg Cardona wasn't criticising Palin because of her sex. Therefore his comment was not sexist. He was not criticising/making fun of women. He was only making fun of Palin herself. Should we not criticise ANY woman, or be called sexist? Racism likewise is not about criticising particular black people (Obama, for instance). It is about generalising about members of a particular race.
It is true that redneck is used only for white people, but that is because rednecks happen to be all white. And there's a reason for that. Historically, rednecks were known to be very anti-black. What's hilarious about your comment is that you ask me whether whites can't be discriminated against due to their color. Now, since Dr Borg Cardona is white, it would be truly bizarre if he were racially slurring people of "his own race".
_____________________________________
@ Chris Borg:
If PN used anti-Arab propaganda in the 70s, that's something they should answer to themselves. That said, there is a difference between criticising a government and criticising all its people. Also, I don't think it is the PN administration that Stephen Farrugia had in mind when calling people "immigrant lovers". Or did he?
"PN used anti-Arab feeling as propaganda in the 1970s"
Those were the years when Gheddafi would, for example, attend an MLP meeting at B'Bugia and tell the crowd that if the Maltese people voted for the PN he would increase the price of oil that was sold to Malta. Hardly the best PR for Arabs.
However, Mr Bonanno should know that true anti-racists may not necessarily care for political correctness. I certainly don't, and I would think that neither does Dr Borg Cardona.
"Of course it is (to criticise someone who happens to be female and white) because you don't write the rules".
Interesting. Can you explain how criticising someone who just happens to be female and white, and not basing the criticism on femininity or whiteness, racist? Did Dr Borg Cardona say that all white women are bible-bashing, barely coherent, red-neck soccer-moms?
"we must respect the incoming sharia law and what to do with our festi".
Can you give one instance in Malta that at least indicates that this is going to happen?
___________________________________________________
@ Etienne Bonanno:
If you knew the meaning of "bible-bashing" and "redneck", you would neither call the reference to bible-bashing as "a slur on her religion", nor would you think the use of the word "redneck" to be racist (he did not say all white women are rednecks).
"So there, friends, you have it. I haven’t mentioned immigration and bigotry, so the revoltingly rabid racists won’t be able to make nauseating excuses for themselves while calling me an immigrant lover."
You couldn't resist the temptation of mentioning bigotry and racists AGAIN, couldn't you?
"I have to agree with you regarding your post but I am not at all surprised because I remember very well what was written about Arabs before 1987, by today's immigrant lovers".
Your statement raises a lot of questions:
1. What was written about Arabs before 1987?
2. Who are what you call "immigrant lovers"?
3. In case you name a few "immigrant lovers" who "wrote about Arabs", could it be that these "immigrant lovers" have changed opinion since the 80s?
4. Was what was written about Arabs before 1987 written about all Arabs, or just about particular Arabs?
5. Were the Arabs written about before 1987 immigrants?
6. Were the Arabs written about before 1987 seeking asylum or protection?
I think that's enough for starters ;)
Of course it is because you don't write the rules. This is what I like about this immigrant story, the rules will apply to a lot of liberties that have to be lost because of multi culturism. ABC cannot write what he likes anymore, we must respect the incoming sharia law and what to do with our festi. What goes round, comes round.
It gets even better because what is illegal becomes irregulare for those that have another interpretation of the law.
:(
Surely with a minimal amount of effort you could have found something more inspiring...
- the forthcoming Russian-EU head to head (that will not doubt draw us into places we should not be)...
- Austria following Ireland, Greece and Germany to become the fourth nation to guarantee private savings... (more socialist type intervention)
- "We didn’t predict this situation during election” – Tonio Fenech when even the economically blind could see EXACTLY where we were /are heading.
- Does the above mean we're not getting the promised light bulbs..???
-"The Sunday Times reports that Britain's commander in Afghanistan believes the Taliban can't be defeated by military means. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith says the insurgency might end if the militants were involved in political negotiations. ".... linking nicely with previous posts re how to deal with racists etc.
- "BRUSSELS - Despite a display of unity and call for confidence in the financial system by leaders of Europe's four biggest economies at a mini-summit in Paris, Germany took emergency measures to save one of the country's key mortgage providers and unilaterally moved to guarantee ....to prevent further deepening of the banking crisis."
etc
But I heard a wee bit of your excuse err..words of wisdom so severely abridged by the State television. It was also reported that many learned beaks stayed away from the solemn occasion. Could it possibly be that they heard that you were delivering your speech? (TIC)
There is not much to write about these days!? Where have you been? Joseph is getting people all hyped up about the proposed new electric tariffs. He is after the government to make sure that the crumbling wall at the Tarxien temples is fixed pronto. He warned that he will be doing no favours to the government if the PM signs the 'voluntary burden sharing agreement ' and, how about the door to door membership drive with his entourage keeping track of who's with him and who's against him? If they are selling memberships, should they not apply for a hawker's permit? Are there no privacy laws in Malta?
And you say there is nothing to write about?
I have to agree with you regarding your post but I am not at all surprised because I remember very well what was written about Arabs before 1987, by today's immigrant lovers.
@ Antoine Vella (Balzan)
Talking about 1987, those were different years, when the Movemento Sociale Italiano were not overpowered by our friends from Lega North, who are now key to the Italian government(Thank God). The MSI overseas have lost touch with their offices in Rome, must be the influence of multi-culturism.
Thank God that the majority of Nationalists today have not been compromised by external corrupt influences because as always, have a mind of their own.
The phrase "I'm not a racist" is repeated so often that it's become a cliche with little meaning. Politicians and other opinion-makers need to dissociate themselves more forcefully from parties, websites and lobbies who, subtly or explicitly, advocate racism.
By the way she is a hockey mom not a soccer mom. Do your research my foe, do your research my foe.