Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 161 to 167 of 167
  1. #161
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Top cop resigns in disgrace over link to racist and obscene posts

    One of Victoria Police's most senior officers and the head of the force's Professional Standards Command has resigned in disgrace over racist and obscene posts made under the pseudonym Vernon Demerest.

    Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin, head of Professional Standards and a police officer of 40 years, was last week referred to Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog after The Age revealed he posted shocking comments under the online pseudonym "Vernon Demerest".

    The Age revealed on Monday that that nom de plume has been also linked to several vile posts on social media under the Demerest alias, including references to "cheating dagos", "third world dullards", "Indian and Pakistani peasant[s]" and "jigaboo[s]".

    Within an hour of The Age revealing the new allegations, Mr Guerin resigned from Victoria Police. His resignation was accepted by the chief commissioner.

    The Age can reveal that Demerest posted vile insults under YouTube videosoften using profane language or referring to sodomy and rape. Some of the comments are too offensive to publish.

    Under a video of a Somali pirate attack, Demerest posted: "I'm afraid this is what happens when the lash is abolished. The jigaboo runs riot and out of control. The 'boo needs the lash. The 'boo wants the lash. Deep, deep down the 'boo knows the lash provides the governance and stability."

    Under a video of Argentina losing to Holland in the 1998 World Cup, he posted: "Wonderful to see greasy, diving, cheating dagoes get their just reward. Bitter, lingering defeat."

    Mr Guerin was referred to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission last week after The Age revealed he was responsible for offensive comments about former Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon and former Police Association boss Paul Mullett on a blog.

    Mr Guerin admitted on Thursday that he was behind the comments made under the name Vernon Demerest, after the fictional character played by Dean Martin in the 1970 movie Airport.

    Last Friday, he was directed by Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton to take leave while the state's corruption watchdog investigates him.

    Of Ms Nixon and Mr Mullett, "Demerest" wrote in August 2016: "She [Ms Nixon] bent the Mulletmeister [Mr Mullett] over and slipped a rather large schlong up his date courtesy of the Supreme Court's decision this morning."

    It is expected IBAC will now also investigate the racist comments made under Mr Guerin's alias.

    This is not the first time Mr Guerin has been linked to racist comments.
    In 2008, Mr Guerin called former senior sergeant Mario Benedetti a "fucken wog".

    Mr Guerin told 3AW last week that it was a "throwaway comment between three blokes who had known each other for 30 years".

    Mr Benedetti has a different account of the exchange. He blames force command for failing to investigate Mr Guerin at the time, and then later, promoting him to head of Professional Standards.

    "It was wrong and it was definitely racist ... I got a payout because they didn't want it to go to VCAT [Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal], but I had to sign a confidentiality agreement," Mr Benedetti said.

    Victoria Police spent almost $300,000 of taxpayer funds fighting the case before settling.

    Mr Benedetti said the insult was made at a formal meeting with Mr Guerin after he had complained about resourcing at Moonee Ponds station.

    Mr Benedetti covertly recorded the conversation, which prompted then chief commissioner Simon Overland to introduce a ban on officers taping each other.

    The Age can also reveal that the Demerest nom de plume was responsible for a string of pornographic comments about Australian sporting matches.

    When Carlton defeated Richmond in September 2013, "Demerest" commented: "Always important, Richmond, to stretch the hamstrings before bending over and touching one's toes to receive turgid blue schlong up the date. But then again, Richmond hammies must be used to that action by now."

    Under a video of Australian batsman David Warner scoring 89 on debut against South Africa, Demerest posted: "South Africa. Bent, spread, lubed and reamed. And reamed. And reamed. Ouch."

    And when Melbourne Storm beat Parramatta he posted: "Yes, the Eels certainly had their pants lowered, were bent over and reamed (without KY) by the mighty Storm. Ouch."

    Demerest posted similar comments when the Australian Rugby League team defeated New Zealand.

    "Very inspiring stuff. It was for the Aussies last night, at least, when they de-trousered, bent and lubed the Kiwis before reaming them with turgid Aussie schlong. Ouch."

    In another bizarre online rant, Demerest claimed that women should not be allowed to sing Australia's national anthem.

    "The National Anthem must never be improvised. It must always be sung by a male. A baritone. And accompanied by a band. No argument. No opinion. Just fact," he posted.

    Mr Guerin defended his right to air his personal views under a pseudonym during a radio interview last week.

    "I guess my default situation is when I see an argument being made that's not fair I do tend to weigh in and try to provide facts and bring some balance,'' Mr Guerin said on 3AW.

    He denied he had used a police computer to make the posts.

    In response to the fresh revelations, a Victoria Police spokesman said: "In accordance with his obligations under the Victoria Police Act, Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton has referred a matter involving allegations against Assistant Commissioner Brett Guerin to IBAC," the spokesman said.

    "As the matter is now with IBAC for its consideration it would not be appropriate to comment further."


  2. #162
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Australia to train Myanmar military despite ethnic cleansing accusations

    Defence department spend continues despite claims treatment of Rohingya bears ‘hallmarks of a genocide’

    The Australian defence department plans to spend almost $400,000 on English lessons, event attendances and training courses for members of the Myanmarmilitary in 2017-18, documents released under freedom of information laws show.

    Myanmar’s armed forces, also known as the Tatmadaw, has faced international condemnation and accusations of ethnic cleansing in recent months for perpetrating a fresh wave of attacks against the country’s minority Rohingyapopulation. About 688,000 Rohingya refugees have fled over the border to Bangladesh since August 2017. Yanghee Lee, a UN human rights investigator, has said the situation bears “the hallmarks of a genocide”.

    In 2017-18 the defence department will spend $398,000 (a $126,000 increase on last year’s spending) on English lessons and on funding Myanmar’s participation in the Pirap Jabiru multilateral military exercises in the region that Australia cohosts with Thailand.

    Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s leader, is due to visit Sydney this month for the Asean-Australia special summit. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said on Thursday the Myanmar government’s treatment of the Rohingya people is expected to be discussed.

    Australian allies including the US, UK, Canada, France and the EU have cut ties with Myanmar’s military over the violence. The US and Canada have imposed targeted sanctions against Myanmar military leaders. In recent months the Myanmar military has also courted controversy through purchases of fighter jets from Russia and ballistic missiles from North Korea.

    A briefing note produced by the defence department says: “Defence has a modest program of engagement with Myanmar in non-combat areas, with a focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, peacekeeping training and English language training. This engagement is designed to expose the Tatmadaw to the ways of a modern, professional defence force and highlight the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law.”

    The briefing note, anticipating a challenge on why the UK and the US have acted differently, says: “Each country needs to make its own decision on engagement with the Tatmadaw.”

    While an arms embargo, introduced in 1991, remains in place, Australia has so far diverged from its allies and resisted calls from groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to suspend military cooperation with Myanmar. Australia held its first bilateral defence cooperation talks with Myanmar in 2017, and plans to hold further talks this year.

    “Australia’s bilateral defence engagement with Myanmar is limited to humanitarian and non-combat areas such as disaster relief, peacekeeping, aviation safety and English-language training,” a defence department spokesperson said.

    “Maintaining this engagement has enabled senior Australian military officials to directly raise concerns on Rakhine with their Myanmar counterparts.”
    Last year the defence department offered Tatmadaw officers English lessons and study places in Australia for courses on aviation safety, maritime security, operational law, joint warfare and peacekeeping. One Tatmadaw officer received a scholarship from the defence department to study for a master of peace and conflict at the University of Sydney.

    In June 2017 Australia gave Myanmar advice on how to carry out an air accident investigation following the deaths of 122 people when a Y-8 military plane crashed.

    The spokesperson gave the example of Lieut Gen Angus Campbell’s meeting with Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw army, at the Pacific armies chiefs conference in Seoul in September 2017.

    Diana Sayed, Amnesty International’s crisis campaigns coordinator, said the Australian government’s strategy of continued engagement and careful diplomacy cannot be justified given the extent and extremity of the crisis.

    “This business as usual approach is unacceptable, and is only going to further damage Australia’s international reputation, especially as Australia takes up its seat on the UN human rights council,” Sayed says. “The decisions of the US, the UK and the EU to cut military ties, and the recent sanctions imposed by Canada all show that Australia is out of touch with the rest of the world when it comes to this crisis.”

    It is not known if members of the Tatmadaw who are directly implicated in the violence against the Rohingyacould benefit from Australian-funded training. The defence spokesperson said subject to course requirements and visa processes, “the Tatmadaw nominates personnel to fill Australia-based training positions”.

    The department did not provide a response to questions about what steps the department is taking to identify individuals implicated in perpetrating the violence.

    Talking points written for the Australian defence minister Marise Payne’s meeting with her Myanmar counterpart Lieut Gen Sein Win in October 2017 advise her to acknowledge the Myanmar government’s narrative that “the current violence was sparked by attacks on government forces”.

    The minister is advised that Australia “strongly condemns” the attacks on security outposts by Rohingya militants, in which 11 police officers were killed, but stops short of condemning the government’s own violence against the Rohingya people in which an estimated 6,700 civilians were killed in only the first month.

    Instead the talking points express Australia’s “deep concern” over the displacement of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, saying that “these reports divert attention away from the legitimate security threat posed by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army [and] harm the Myanmar military’s international reputation”.


  3. #163
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Malcolm Fraser’s ‘white farmers’ prophecy is now a reality

    A year before he died in 2015, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser agreed to meet me at his Melbourne office to discuss Australia’s treatment of sea-borne refugees.

    The cruelties of the offshore detention system, he said, made it look, “from outside Australia … as if the white Australia policy battles are still raging”.

    There was no way, he said, that a boatload of “white South African farmers would be treated that way if they sailed into Fremantle harbour” – a sentiment he also expressed to the ABC in 2012.

    They were prophetic words, because this week 2GB’s Ray Hadley asked Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton if he was planning to help “white South African farmers who are facing violence and land seizures at home”.

    Mr Dutton replied: “I’ve asked the Department to look at ways in which we can provide some assistance … potentially in the humanitarian program, because if people are being persecuted – regardless of whether it’s because of religion or the colour of their skin or whatever – we need to provide assistance where we can.”

    This has brought howls of outrage from the Greens, who have been calling on the government to provide visas to 20,000 Rohingya refugees – a tiny fraction of nearly a million fleeing Myanmar – as it did recently with a one-off 12,000 intake of Syrian refugees.

    Greens refugee spokesman Nick McKim told The New Daily: “Peter Dutton’s willingness to help white South Africans stands in complete contrast with his cold-hearted neglect of the Rohingya people. He’s now unambiguously taking Australia back to the old racist white Australia policy.”

    Ease of integration

    It is almost certainly true, as Mr Dutton told 2GB, that white South Africans would “integrate well into Australian society”. They have no trouble communicating in English, and, as the minister pointed out, there’s a “huge South African expat community within Australia”.

    What’s hard to see, however, is why that would leapfrog them up the humanitarian program waiting list.

    In his interview, Mr Hadley said there were “reports that one white farmer is murdered every week”.

    That’s a terrible statistic, if true, but there are far worse reports coming from the “crisis on our doorstop”, as the Greens call it.

    Medecins Sans Frontieres reports more than 10,000 Rohingya have been killed in the past six months – close to 400 people a week.

    They too have been forced from their land, and their homes and villages destroyed.
    Alternative paths

    Dr Jay Song, a migration researcher with the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne, points out that humanitarian visas would not be the right path for South Africans.

    She says that although in-country displaced persons can qualify as refugees, they must be facing political persecution.

    The South African government says this is not the case. It states: “There is no reason for any government in the world to suspect that a section of South Africans is under danger from their own democratically elected government.”

    Dr Song thinks skilled, family or even student visas would be better routes into Australia for the farmers in question, especially if they could bring skills to regional Australia.

    As it turns out, the farmers themselves don’t seem too keen to move to Australia at all.

    Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum, while welcoming Mr Dutton’s comments, is maintaining that solutions to “the problems that Afrikaners and other minorities experience in South Africa must be found and that a future must be created at the southernmost tip of Africa wherein Afrikaners and other minorities can continually exist as free, safe and prosperous”.

    Whether that is achieved will depend upon how bad the violence and unrest gets. The South African government’s plans for forced land redistribution clearly have the potential to get much uglier.

    One thing we can say, however, is that Malcolm Fraser’s prophecy looks to be right on the money.

    Australia has been locking up legitimate refugees on Nauru and Manus Island for the better part of two decades, trying, absurdly, to resettle them in Cambodia and Papua New Guinea, and offering them cash bribes to return to the countries they fled.

    Not only would that brutal treatment never be dished out to white South African farmers, but we are now proactively trying to add them to our humanitarian intake.

    Australia’s disgraceful record of politicising refugee issues has rarely been more brazenly displayed.


  4. #164
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Australia's White Fragility

    Sarah Keenan

    In contrast to the refugees Australia imprisons offshore, the white South African farmers that the Australian government want to fast-track for humanitarian or other visa programmes are some of the most privileged people on the planet.

    Last Wednesday, Australia’s Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton announced that his department was examining a range of methods to fast-track white South African farmers for humanitarian or other visa programmes, due to the ‘horrific circumstances’ the farmers are facing. ‘From what I have seen,’ Dutton said, ‘they do need help from a civilised country like ours.’ The statement came days after the South African government took a tentative but significant step toward the realisation of long-promised post-apartheid land reform. That Dutton would portray this move redressing structural racism in South Africa as a humanitarian catastrophe requiring pre-emptive rescue measures reveals much about Australia’s white fragility.

    The term ‘white fragility’, first coined by critical race scholar, Robin DiAngelo, has recently made it into Oxford Dictionaries, where it is defined as ‘discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice’. As DiAngelo explains, this discomfort and defensiveness results from white people having been insulated from race-based stress, and thereby built up high expectations for racial comfort while lowering their ability to tolerate racial stress. While the concept was developed to explain interpersonal relations, Australia’s treatment of refugees displays white fragility at a geopolitical level.

    Because Australia is only reachable either by plane or by a long and treacherous boat journey crossing the south Pacific, it receives a tiny number of irregular migrants compared with Europe and the US. Its geography largely insulates it from the global reality of mass dispossession and forced migration. When confronted by boats carrying these black, brown and predominantly Muslim refugees, Australia treats them as a serious threat to national security and sovereignty and meets them with military defense. Since 2013, Australia has spent over Aus$10 billion on its uniquely cruel refugee deterrence system, paying the Papua New Guinea and Nauru governmnceents to host privately run detention centres imprisoning hundreds of people who sought asylum in Australia by boat. This regime, which has been condemned by the UN as breaching the Convention Against Torture and seen two refugees self-immolate, is justified by the Australian government as being necessary to ‘keep our borders safe’.

    In contrast to the refugees Australia imprisons offshore, white South African farmers are some of the most privileged people on the planet. White people make up just 8% of South Africa's population yet own 72% of its farmland. This massive racial inequality is a legacy of Dutch and British colonialism, most significantly the Natives’ Land Act 1913 which allocated just 7% of the country’s land to black South Africans, who then made up 80% of the population. The Act brutally forced the majority of the native population off their land, making them a cheap and plentiful labour force for white exploitation. The much-celebrated end of apartheid in 1994 did not redress this massive disparity in land ownership, leaving whites with the land their families acquired under the previous white supremacist regime, and blacks living in poverty in the townships. There is no evidence to support the claim that white farmers are more vulnerable to violent crime than any other South African. In fact, the group most vulnerable to violent crime in South Africa is young black men in urban areas.

    Land reform has been on the agenda for post-apartheid South Africa for over two decades. Dutton’s unsolicited offer to white farmers came just days after South Africa’s National Assembly passed a motion for land expropriation without compensation. The details of this project are yet to be revealed, but for it to go ahead South Africa will need to amend its constitution, which is likely to be a long and difficult process. White farmers are not about to be violently and systematically forced off the land in the way blacks were forced off theirs from 1913.

    For the Australian Home Affairs minister, however, the very idea that land could be expropriated from white farmers as a means to redress racial injustice and inequality is a terrifying and intolerable one. His direction to his department to urgently find legal routes for these farmers to migrate to Australia constructs the possibility of real post-apartheid land reform as a humanitarian emergency.

    Australia’s political and legal systems and its dominant white culture perpetuate an unblinking refusal to acknowledge that present landownership is based on racial injustice, let alone consider taking steps to redistribute it. Australia is built entirely on stolen land. Australia remains the only former British settler colony never to have signed a treaty with the indigenous population. Colonial sovereignty was instead asserted on the basis that the land was terra nullius or ‘empty’, because indigenous Australians were not counted as properly human. White farmers are celebrated in Australia’s settler colonial imaginary as hard-working and worthy pioneers, their labour making vast expanses of previously ‘wild’, ‘empty’ land productive, and thereby building the nation.

    When, in the historic 1992 Mabo decision, the Australian High Court finally acknowledged that terra nullius was a racist lie, it refused to consider the logical conclusion that Australia’s sovereignty and white land ownership might also be illegitimate. To do so, one judge said, would be to ‘fracture the skeleton of principle’ which underlies Australian law. This was an obtuse way of acknowledging the very fragile foundations of today’s Australia. When Peter Dutton announces fast-track visas for hypothetical white South African refugees, he inadvertently does the same.


  5. #165
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    South Africa: Taking farms from whites is justified because 'it's not really their land', says EFF spokesman

    ‘White people ought to accept the crime of apartheid’

    The national spokesman of a key South African opposition party has said redistributing land from white farmers without compensation is justified because “it is not really their land”.

    Mbuyiseni Ndlozi told The Independent white farmers descended from Dutch and English colonial invaders had “have taken it [the land] through a violent crime against humanity”.

    Mr Ndlozi is one of the most senior officials in the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, which put forward a successful motion last month calling on the government to consider amending South Africa’s constitution, to make clear that it is within the authorities’ power to redistribute property on racial grounds.

    There have been concerns among South Africa’s white minority that the motion will encourage attacks on farmers, and the EFF’s leader Julius Malema has previously been convicted of hate speech for singing anti-white songs like “Shoot the Boer [Farmer]”.

    Many South Africans nonetheless agree that some land distribution is needed as the country continues to recover from the horrors of apartheid and colonial rule.
    White people officially occupy 23.6 per cent of farmland in the country – a figure which rises to 73 per cent when land owned through private enterprises is taken into account – compared to 1.2 per cent owned by black South Africans.

    “In this process, white people ought to accept the crime of apartheid and colonisation and how these crimes impacted on black people,” Mr Ndlozi said. Whites could “show remorse by ceding land they inherited through anti-black racist dispossession”, he suggested, adding: “Justice leads to reconciliation.”

    Mr Ndlozi is a rising but divisive figure in South African politics, who at just 32 has garnered a strong following on social media.

    A party founded on revolutionary ideals, the EFF itself holds just 25 seats in parliament, trailing behind the African National Congress (ANC) on 249 and the Democratic Alliance (DA) on 89. Yet as third-largest party it punches above its weight by entering into coalitions with the DA and other opposition groupings to obstruct the ruling ANC’s legislation.

    It is widely understood that the EFF’s staunch opposition to President Jacob Zuma accelerated his resignation in February.

    The ANC is now very aware of the importance of keeping the EFF on side, moving towards more radical policies like land reform that promise to deliver a fairer economic landscape for South Africa’s black population – a key EFF message.

    “We felt a great and overwhelming sense of historic responsibility to finally reconstitute South African society on a truly non-racial land ownership basis,” Mr Ndlozi told The Independent.

    Mr Ndlozi said he thought South Africa would be a better place without “whites”, going on to explain: “Yes, any community in the world would be a better place without any one referring to themselves as ‘white’.”

    The EFF is doing little to shake its anti-white image. Just this week the party’s deputy president, Floyd Shivambu, was filmed putting his hand round the throat of a white Afrikaans journalist for Netwerk 24, Adrian de Kock, outside parliament.

    And earlier this month Mr Malema suggested the EFF would topple a mayor in the coastal town of Port Elizabeth due to his race.

    “They will be touched – don’t worry,” Mr Malema told a rally. “We are starting with this whiteness – we are cutting the throat of whiteness.”

    Asked how he could defend such statements, party spokesman Mr Ndlozi said the rhetoric was meant figuratively. “By definition ‘whiteness’ means white hatred of blacks,” he said.

    “You only define yourself as white to distinguish yourself from blacks; whiteness is a reference in as far as it seeks to point out the absolute other, which is black.
    We are going to take some of their land to share it with other blacks.”


  6. #166
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Memo from a South African: Peter Dutton is entrenching racist white privilege

    Tue 10 Apr 2018

    My child eyes witnessed racism daily in South Africa. I could escape because I’m white

    This year marks the 70th anniversary of the implementation of the racist legislation known as apartheid in South Africa. In 1948, laws were signed into effect that forever changed the lives of South Africans, leaving a devastating legacy, which many of us across the world still live with and struggle against.

    I am a white former South African living in Australia, grateful every day for my citizenship. But I am here because, partly, of an unearned privilege. I’m a refugee with a gold-class ticket: I have white skin and I speak fluent received pronunciation English.

    Apartheid, literally meaning “apartness”, divided South African citizens based on skin colour. We lived under an appalling caste system from 1948 until 1992, which drew for inspiration on Queensland’s 1897 Aboriginals Protection and the Sale of Opium Act, and privileged white colonists while dispossessing an entire indigenous population.

    Since colonisation, and certainly from the late 1800s onward, white colonials in South Africa of Dutch and English descent sought to address the “native question” (the “problem” that South Africa was already inhabited by large numbers of black people). On 19 June 1913, the Natives Land Act was passed: millions of black Africans could not own, or rent land in 93% of the country. They were offered areas totalling only 7% of the country, though they made up most of the population. In 1948, more laws, and apartheid, came into being, relieving most black South Africans of most of their human rights.

    I grew up during that apartheid era. The Group Areas Act was legislation that forced blacks to live in one area, coloureds and Indians in others, and whites in others. Influx Control kept blacks out of white areas. Black people were forcibly removed from their homes if the white government decided that this would benefit whites. The Native Resettlement Act of 1954 signed into effect by the rightwing Nationalist government meant that black families living too close to white city centres could be forcibly removed from their homes. Sophiatown was once a thriving black area in Johannesburg. Guns and bulldozers destroyed it, hounding its black population out between 1955 and 1960. District 6, a multi-racial area in the Cape was destroyed in the 1970s because people of different skin colours living together was illegal.

    While I was growing up in the 1970s, white South Africans had the highest standard of living in the world. Black people had to carry a “pass” in white areas where they worked as servants. Failure to produce one meant instant arrest. Torture and deaths in detention were standard. My child eyes saw on a daily basis police vans stuffed full of black people who had broken Influx Control laws heading off to jail. I lived through a time of appalling injustice and it has marked me forever. Black South Africans have lived through dispossession in spades.

    Cyril Ramaphosa, the new South African president is attempting to redress the imbalances of the past, but his proposed land grab looks less like an attempt at redress, and perhaps more like former Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe’s “resettlement” of white Zimbabwean farmland.

    For years now, white South African farmers have been targeted and killed in race-acts against them. Ramaphosa’s silence could be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as seeming to condone this. If he is condoning this, it is atrocious. But is it more atrocious than apartheid? And is Peter Dutton’s offer of a helping hand to the white farmers racist? Of course it is.

    A black child in a township is far more likely to be killed than a white farmer on a farm. I feel for those farmers, just as I felt for the millions of black people I watched suffer under apartheid. But this land-grab has a long history. It’s a reaction and needs to be seen in the context of a larger history of racism and exploitation of black people.

    I ran from a dangerous place because I wanted to live a normal life. I have been illegal and poor in several countries. But ultimately, my white skin has given me a privilege over my black friends and family. In Australia, I do not encounter racism because I am white. My Aboriginal friends encounter it every day. I have been able to make my way in society and no one has ever looked at me as a second-class citizen.

    So, if I were a white farmer would I be overjoyed at Dutton’s offer to give me a ticket out of danger? Absolutely. But is Dutton, as a white rightwing politician from a country that once had a “whites only” immigration policy, extending a helping hand to white South African farmers, while at exactly the same time sending dark-skinned refugees, families and children back to places like Sri Lanka and Afghanistan where their lives are in absolute danger entrenching racist, white privilege? To my mind, it certainly seems that way.

    After 70 years of apartheid in South Africa and a legacy in Australia of the White Australia policy, of entrenching privilege based on skin colour, we once again bear witness to the raising of status of white people’s lives over brown or black people’s. And apartheid continues its insidious journey into the future of both continents.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts