|Sad John Maycock, failed Journalist who showed that you can get a degree in social science yet know nothing about it.|
His areas of interests include History, Politics, and Sociology, society and cultures; where he is particularly concerned with the marginalisation and vilification of minority groups and the manipulation of public opinion, driving the marginalisation through divisive political discourse and a compliant media.
What a joke...he is unwilling to permit alternative opinion on his own media space.. I suppose he is just a lefty pot calling the mainstream kettle black! Well.. his despotic and paranoid protectivism will do no good... truth will be told!
Ronald Ostrowski wrote: (in Cockup's blog)
Hi Ronald, you reply was quite respectful and deserving of a thoughtful reply. The Bolt experience was an eye opener. I completely agree with you that Bolt should have done better homework, but I will not discredit the ultimate aim and intent of his sequence of articles on that very important public interest issue. He was sloppy, point conceded. Sloppiness never helps good intention.
On the issue of 'Aboriginal', I encountered a number of people outside the court room who 'informed' me that 'race is a social construct' (an absurdity but still) and therefore anyone who wishes, can call themselves 'Aboriginal'.
Let's not debate DNA, race and biology now, there are bigger fish to fry.
RESPECT FOR DIFFERENCE. This is a seriously important issue, that needs a concerted effort to unpack. "Difference" has many dimensions, and I suppose the primary point I'd like to make here is that there are differences in culture, religion, philosophical outlook and political ideology and so on. For the purposes of this discussion, the crucial point is.."how" do those differences impact non 'them'? This could conceivably lead to a discussion about utilitarianism, and the greatest benefit for the greatest number, (Benthem and others) but I'll try to avoid that path. If we have 'Ideology A' and 'Ideology B' (political or religious..same diff) We can make a venn diagram of where they intersect and have common ground, and the rest remains disconnected. This then leads to..."What will party or ideology 'A' do in order to remain in power, on top, dominant etc relative to ideology 'B'? clearly in a competitive political or cultural setting, I suggest they will do "'whatever it takes" hence the depth of toxic venom manifest in our political debate these days.
WHAT KIND OF DIFFERENCE? John Locke point out in his 'Treatise on Toleration' that it is invalid to use the magistrate to enforce issues of faith, hence, it is horrible for the State to seek to impose a particular religious orthodoxy on all it's citizens. This was during the bad old days of the struggle between Rome and Luther/Calvin in British religious life. I've found Locke to be most refreshing. But in Islam.....this is where it get's difficult. Islam, is a lot like Roman Catholicism with 'power'....both believing they are the only authentic representative of God on earth, and..AND....that they have the authority to compel obedience using the magistrate.... (or the Sharia court) we have in embryo the same chicken that laid it's destructive intolerant religious eggs all over the British Isles, except that it's in MY country (and yours).
SOME DIFFERENCE IS DANGEROUS. I am not a subscriber to the social views of Irving Goffman, who seems to be at the philosophical root of much of todays "don't despise difference" narrative. Nor am I an adherent of Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" (Google and just read the first paragraph..it's enough).
I am a fervent believer that some difference is diabolical. Islam is one such "difference". I say this with some heavy duty study and life experience, of the faith and it's history, and I am adamant that we must always assess an ideology (including Christianity, Hindusim, Buddhism and Sikhism) by the content of their constitution (Scriptures) and the conduct of their founder.
I do hope you will avoid the temptation to look up and down the street and see 3 or 4 families of friendly Muslims and then judge the ideology by them alone... It's the wrong way around. Hitlers "point 3" of his 25 point program spelt out his aim for territory, and it translated into invading Russia. See it? Foundation==> Fulfillment.
I cannot imagine you would ever evaluate National Socialism by the nice man in a black uniform, jackboots and wearing 'colorful armbands' when he is serving the poor at the local soup kitchen. Heaven forbid.