God is Evil

[ColinEssex]

Personally, I don't think Colin is either, I think he falls in the category of Devils Advocate, you gotta love him, he's cute

That's true - don't forget loveable - oh, and modest

Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

but if you read it colour and race are required and nationality is not on its own

I did not see any "ANDs" only "ORs"

Brian

 

[Alc]

but if you read it colour and race are required and nationality is not on its own

No it isn't

Racial group – this means any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin.

The sentence is interpreted by law as
(race) OR (colour) OR (nationality) OR (ethnic origin) OR (national origin).
not
(race AND colour AND nationality (including citizenship)) OR (ethnic or national origin)

 

[Mike375]

I did not see any "ANDs" only "ORs"

Brian

Agree but I think the Ors imply Ands

 

[dan-cat]

but if you read it colour and race are required and nationality is not on its own

I think it's very clear that only one of four elements (colour, race, nationality, ethnic/national origin) is required to fulfull the criteria of a racial group. Otherwise all four would be required which contradicts your interpretation anyway.

 

[Alc]

Agree but I think the Ors imply Ands

You stay the hell away from my database

 

[Mike375]

No it isn't

The sentence is interpreted by law as
(race) OR (colour) OR (nationality) OR (ethnic origin) OR (national origin).
not
(race AND colour AND nationality (including citizenship)) OR (ethnic or national origin)

Let's assume you are correct

What race is an Arab who is an Australian citizen?

 

[Alc]

Let's assume you are correct

What race is an Arab who is an Australian citizen?

For the purposes of how he sees himself? Whichever he picks.
For the purposes of protection under the law? Either.

 

[Mike375]

Well in Australia if he is was on the run the police description would include of Middle Eastern (or Asian as the case might be) appearance.

If I was signing him up for different types of insurance such as life or disability cover then Arabic would go down on the form and for good reason. Different "races" can be pre disposed to different sickness etc.

 

[Alc]

Well in Australia if he is was on the run the police description would include of Middle Eastern (or Asian as the case might be) appearance.

If I was signing him up for different types of insurance such as life or disability cover then Arabic would go down on the form and for good reason. Different "races" can be pre disposed to different sickness etc.

Suppose he was being beaten up by, let's say. a gang from New Zealand who didn't care about his colour and were doing it precisely because he was Australian, wouldn't that be classed as racist, under Australian law?

 

[Mike375]

Suppose he was being beaten up by, let's say. a gang from New Zealand who didn't care about his colour and were doing it precisely because he was Australian, wouldn't that be classed as racist, under Australian law?

If the NZers did beat up an Arab it would be seen as being racially based.

The bottom line is you can twist the semantics all day long but race is a physical attribute and where you live does not determine your race.

A lot of do gooders in Australia have pushed for the removal of "of Middle Eastern appearance" from police descriptions but it goes nowhere because it is not practical.

As a side note I could ask an Arab who is an Australian citizen...are you Australian?... and he might say Yes or Yes, of Lebanese background. But I can guarantee you if I ask him what race he is his answer will be Arab.

If someone asked me my race I would probably say Anglo Celtic but not Australian. If my parents had of been citizens of Lebanon and I was born in Lebanon my race would still be Anglo Celtic. Or perhaps Caucasian.

 

[Alc]

The bottom line is you can twist the semantics all day long but race is a physical attribute and where you live does not determine your race.

I'm not twisting anything
If the law says that doing something to - or saying something about - someone because of their nationality is racist, then chergh (sp?) is correct in his initial statement.

I'd agree with the following point

A lot of do gooders in Australia have pushed for the removal of "of Middle Eastern appearance" from police descriptions but it goes nowhere because it is not practical.

Middle Eastern appearance can apply whether the person is or isn't from that area.

Bottom line is that what you or I think qualifies as 'race' is irrelevant if enough people think otherwise that it has become law in multiple countries.

If I say all Polish people are thieves, I'm making a racist remark.
If I say the Jews should be killed, I'm making a racist remark.
If I say black people are inferior, I'm making a racist remark.
Do I think of all of those groups as races? Not personally, but that doesn't matter, the law does and I'm aware of that fact. I may think that the speed limit should be higher, does that mean I don't have to obey it? No.
I may not agree with the definition of racism, but it's not up to me to set it.

 

[Rich]

If the NZers did beat up an Arab it would be seen as being racially based.

The bottom line is you can twist the semantics all day long but race is a physical attribute and where you live does not determine your race.

A lot of do gooders in Australia have pushed for the removal of "of Middle Eastern appearance" from police descriptions but it goes nowhere because it is not practical.

As a side note I could ask an Arab who is an Australian citizen...are you Australian?... and he might say Yes or Yes, of Lebanese background. But I can guarantee you if I ask him what race he is his answer will be Arab.

If someone asked me my race I would probably say Anglo Celtic but not Australian. If my parents had of been citizens of Lebanon and I was born in Lebanon my race would still be Anglo Celtic. Or perhaps Caucasian.

Which side would you support first though say if both countries were playing cricket against each other?

 

[dan-cat]

Bottom line is that what you or I think qualifies as 'race' is irrelevant if enough people think otherwise that it has become law in multiple countries.

It's interesting that the seemingly most popular British viewpoint of what 'racism' is actually contradicts the legal definition.

 

[Rich]

I'm not twisting anything
If the law says that doing something to - or saying something about - someone because of their nationality is racist, then chergh (sp?) is correct in his initial statement.

I'd agree with the following point

Middle Eastern appearance can apply whether the person is or isn't from that area.

Bottom line is that what you or I think qualifies as 'race' is irrelevant if enough people think otherwise that it has become law in multiple countries.

If I say all Polish people are thieves, I'm making a racist remark.
If I say the Jews should be killed, I'm making a racist remark.
If I say black people are inferior, I'm making a racist remark.
Do I think of all of those groups as races? Not personally, but that doesn't matter, the law does and I'm aware of that fact. I may think that the speed limit should be higher, does that mean I don't have to obey it? No.
I may not agree with the definition of racism, but it's not up to me to set it.

"The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself." Charles Dickens. ...

 

[Mike375]

If I say all Polish people are thieves, I'm making a racist remark.

That woukld not be racist in Australia if the reference was to polish people living in Poland but would be if it was directed to Polish people in Australia. It would be different again if it was Americans or English as that is taken they are anglo based.

If I say the Jews should be killed, I'm making a racist remark.

Again, that would be racist in Australia if aimed at Jews in Australia and ditto for Arabs and more so than Polish because Arabs and Jews are semites so very distinct from anglo and European.

If I say black people are inferior, I'm making a racist remark.

Ditto in Australia.

Do I think of all of those groups as races? Not personally, but that doesn't matter, the law does and I'm aware of that fact. I may think that the speed limit should be higher, does that mean I don't have to obey it? No.
I may not agree with the definition of racism, but it's not up to me to set it.

Yes I accept that point. However, the forum is operating under common use of words. But as to the law I think it will be different when referring to "nationality" that is living in the country where the statements are made.

For example, in Australia I could make all sorts of remarks about Iraqis if I am referring to Iraq but different if I am referring to Iraqis living in Australia.

But another thing is Colin's posts are based on American culture. in Australia I could day that the Chinese all eat food that stinks to high heaven and that would be OK. However, if I said all Chines looked like they need feed to put some weight on then that would be different. Their stature is a by product of their race but the food is a by product of their culture and can be changed and it won't apply to all Chinese.

 

[Rich]

It's interesting that the seemingly most popular British viewpoint of what 'racism' is actually contradicts the legal definition.

The British definition

 

[dan-cat]

The British definition

Yes, the British legal definition.

 

[Rich]

Yes, the British legal definition.

As they say the law is an ass and how odd that those who lead us totaly ignored the law when they attacked Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[dan-cat]

But as to the law I think it will be different when referring to "nationality" that is living in the country where the statements are made.

The law clearly defines what racism is for an Australian citizen. To say that this definition bears no weight for an Australian citizen because the target of the abuse resides outside of the Australian legal system is pretty limp, IMO.