Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • The Daily Hate is outraged… again!


    by Sunny
    1st July, 2008 at 7:21 pm    

    This is a rather amusing story. Scotland’s Tayside police produced an ad for non-emergency calls featuring a puppy. A Dundee councillor, Mohammed Asif, pointed out the problem. The article says: “The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.”

    That’s their right of course. But oh noes… the Daily Mail is outraged! It’s political correctness gone mad! Get Richard Littlejohn on the phone! Don’t you know this is why the BNP is doing so well? via Ben


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence,Media,Religion






    98 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Don — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:45 pm  

      Here we go again. A picture of a puppy has ‘sparked anger’? Bad puppy, bad.

      Hell, even I know that Islam has no beef with dogs per se. If Councillor Asif has a problem with pictures of dogs he needs to get over himself. Put the picture up or don’t put it up, but spare us the manufactured outrage.

    2. BenSix — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:48 pm  

      Don,

      I presume that he was asked for an interview, as the only other possibility is that the Daily Mail is the first port of call for Muslims that feel offended.

      Ben

    3. marvin — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:51 pm  

      Where in the Qu’ran does it say thou shalt not put up postcards sent out by the local police authority if thou hast a cute puppy on it?!

      Amazing the the Muslim community (or very small section of it) were so outraged they contacted their local Muslim councillor!!

      It is a lil bit ridiculous, don’t ya think Sunny?!

      “It’s their right of course”

      Right to be intolerant of other cultures more like, hiding under the guise of piousness!

      I guess like the Mailers refusing to put Police cards up with a picture of a Brown person on it, I suppose :P

      Silly, and intolerant, seems to me.

    4. BenSix — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:51 pm  

      Oh, and to the list - with Stormfront and LgF - we can now add commenters at Harry’s Place.

      Ben

    5. marvin — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:52 pm  

      But she would be intolerant of intolerance? Or in the case of Sunny, intolerant of intolerance of intolerance?

    6. Inders — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:57 pm  

      Is this actually true. My BS detector is scoring a higher then average reading.

      And I’m also slightly disappointed no one has attempted a pig joke yet.

    7. marvin — on 1st July, 2008 at 7:59 pm  

      Inders if this is not true Daily Mail will get sued. Read the quotes from councillor Asif. Heh…

    8. Sunny — on 1st July, 2008 at 8:10 pm  

      Right to be intolerant of other cultures more like, hiding under the guise of piousness!

      So let me get this straight. If I want to publicise something that you find offensive, you should just get over it?

      So if a woman wants to object to putting up a poster of some lap dancing club, she should just get over it? And if someone wanted you to put up a poster of Hizbollah, you should just get over it and stop being so pious?

      Not that the cute lil puppy (bless his socks) should be compared to Hizbollah, but the point is that people have the right to object to what they want if they don’t like it. It’s a free society isn’t it? Especially shop owners?

      I’d object to it especially if I knew the Daily Mail was goign to be outraged!

    9. Sunny — on 1st July, 2008 at 8:22 pm  

      Marvin, should they also bugger off to another country if they don’t like the culture here?

    10. Don — on 1st July, 2008 at 8:36 pm  

      Ben,

      Why presume that? Unless he is known to provide good indignation fodder, why would the Mail seek him out?

      The puppy, btw, is a police (ie working) dog. There is no prohibition or problem with that in Islam, you are just not supposed to let them slobber on you or treat them as quasi-humans. This is invented outrage. If the quotes are accurate then the councillor and the tabloid are just feeding off one another’s bigotry.

      Sunny, very poor comparisons. There are legitimate arguments to be made against the existence of lap dancing clubs. What are the arguments against the existence of puppies?

      Shall there be no police dogs, guide dogs, rescue dogs? Because some pompous twerp needs his daily dose of outrage?

    11. Bert Rustle — on 1st July, 2008 at 8:46 pm  

      Sunny 8 wrote … So let me get this straight. If I want to publicise something that you find offensive, you should just get over it? …

      The greater the Diversity of the population, the greater the likelihood of the cherished beliefs of one Community being the opposite for another. I would hazard a guess that either segregation or walking on eggshells will be the most likely stable configurations with the former actually being the creation of nations within nations, as is already occurring within the UK.

      Are there guide dogs in Muslim countries?

      How do blind people manage in Muslim countries?

      How do blind Muslims manage in the UK?

    12. BenSix — on 1st July, 2008 at 9:00 pm  

      “Why presume that? Unless he is known to provide good indignation fodder, why would the Mail seek him out?”

      - He’s a Councillor, a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board and a Muslim.
      - Do you REALLY think that when Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists are offended by something in Britain they hit upon the Daily Mail as a source of sympathy?

      “This is invented outrage.”

      Damn right.

    13. soru — on 1st July, 2008 at 9:07 pm  

      And if someone wanted you to put up a poster of Hizbollah, you should just get over it and stop being so pious?

      Putting up posters just because someone asked you to is a perfect example of civil society. If there isn’t a common sense of agreement as to what is reasonable to put on such a poster, then that aspect of civil society can’t exist.

      In which case, over the time, the example you picked might start to become pretty relevant.

    14. DavidMWW — on 1st July, 2008 at 9:25 pm  

      There is a story here, but it’s not about outraged Muslim shopkeepers (I’d be very surprised if there were any). It’s about some idiot councillor trying to make a name for himself as a “community leader”, and doing more harm than good in the process. And it’s about the Tayside police playing into his hands by falling over themselves to apologise when he suggests his community might be offended.

      The police spokesperson said, “‘We did not seek advice from the force’s diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.”

      Don’t apologise. It only encourages dickheads like councillor Mohammed Asif.

    15. Ravi Naik — on 1st July, 2008 at 9:38 pm  

      “This is invented outrage. If the quotes are accurate then the councillor and the tabloid are just feeding off one another’s bigotry.”

      Exactly right. And all so predictable. The rightwing media will always find a clown who is ready to speak for even the smallest group of outraged village idiots, and make it sound like we have a bigger problem than there is. With clowns like that, who needs the BNP?

    16. Don — on 1st July, 2008 at 9:42 pm  

      Ben,

      Do you REALLY think that…

      Of course not. I suspect we are at crossed purposes. I’m sure the Mail has a network of provincial journos who are alert to any comment by a local fat-head which will ring tabloid bells. Was it the Mail or the Express which was caught out sending e-mails begging for anti-East European worker stories?

      The correct response to this kind of fatuous pseudo-offence is not apology or huffing and puffing. It’s point and laugh.

    17. BenSix — on 1st July, 2008 at 10:22 pm  

      “The correct response to this kind of fatuous pseudo-offence is not apology or huffing and puffing. It’s point and laugh.”

      I don’t find the whole affair amusing so much as vaguely disturbing. A few faintly pompous obscurities have allowed the Daily Heil to once more broad-brush the ‘Muslim community’ (who will, no doubt, be expected to distance themselves).

    18. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 10:31 pm  

      Sunny,

      “Don’t you know this is why the BNP is doing so well?”

      Don’t YOU know this is why the BNP is doing so well?

      And if not this kind of thing, why DO you think the BNP is doing so well? Has there been an outbreak of National Socialism?

      Also compare the murder of Ben Kinsella. How is it that everyone knows deep down that the bulk of the current knife and gun problem lies within the black community, but not one decent outfit can come out and say it? Which leaves vile sites like Stormfront and the BNP as the only place for an open debate on the subject.

      As you have said yourself, ‘no platform’ is actually driving support to the BNP.

    19. Inders — on 1st July, 2008 at 10:46 pm  

      How is it that everyone knows deep down that the bulk of the current knife and gun problem lies within the black community.

      The bulk of the current knife and gun victims are also black.

      Also for no one decent coming out and saying it.

      See Operation Trident.

    20. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 10:52 pm  

      Inders,

      As far as I can make out (and I don’t know much about it) Trident operates with a maximum of secrecy, in order to try and get round the mistrust towards police in the black community.

      It also operates under the auspices of Lee Jasper and others with similar political views, which makes it likely that Trident will never disclose what it knows for fear of offending the black community.

      The majority of perpetrators AND victims are black, yet not one proper media or political outfit can be honest about the problem. Doesn’t that fly in the face of common sense?

    21. platinum786 — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:03 pm  

      As a Muslim this story really annoys me. What the hell is wrong with some people, it’s a poster of a puppy, nobody is building a pig stye in the middle of your papershop.

      In Islam dogs, amongst other animals are considered unclean. contact with these animals means your clothes are no longer pure to pray in, and need to be changed before you pray. Despite that, dogs have the same role in Muslim society as any other society, as a domesticated animal. You’ll find a guard dog owned by Muslims, yo won’t find a dog lying on a Muslims bed or sat on the sofa in a muslim household.

      Anyone offendd by a poster, needs to get a life.

    22. Leon — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:10 pm  

      How is it that everyone knows deep down that the bulk of the current knife and gun problem lies within the black community, but not one decent outfit can come out and say it?

      Interesting, why don’t you put out a press release saying just that, being a white person running a mix together site I’m sure you’d get some on screen time…

    23. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:13 pm  

      How old are you, Leon?

    24. Leon — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:15 pm  

      I’m being serious, I would just love to see you go on tv as the founder of the organisation you run and say that. I’m not joking either, hell I’d even write the press release for you.

      I don’t think you realise just how powerful someone like you saying something like that would be. I’d open up all kinds of debate about this problem.

    25. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:18 pm  

      Why do you think MixTogether as an organisation would be a good place from which to make that point?

    26. Leon — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:22 pm  

      Isn’t it obvious? It stands as an organisation that exists to challenge taboos. You being the founder, having experience of racist treatment and being white would be newsworthy. The message is the point, the organisation is your platform.

      Why write comments on some blog when you could actually put your money where your mouth is (so to speak) and bring your views to a bigger audience?

    27. Sunny — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:22 pm  

      Sunny, very poor comparisons. There are legitimate arguments to be made against the existence of lap dancing clubs. What are the arguments against the existence of puppies?

      ha ha! there are absolutely no arguments against puppies, I’ve had several over my lifetime and plan to get another one soon.

      My point is that regardless of whether this controversy is manufactured or whether its a councillor trying to make a name for himself (both very likely), shopkeepers are still allowed to be offended and not put up posters they don’t like.

      That is the point of a flexible, liberal society. Whether that leads to more tension is debateable… I’d say the manufactured outrage of the Daily Hate makes it worse.

    28. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:25 pm  

      Leon

      “Why write comments on some blog when you could actually put your money where your mouth is (so to speak) and bring your views to a bigger audience?”

      While I’m glad to note your esteem for this blog, you must realise that MixTogether is a small organisation staffed by volunteers, not an established political party or media outlet.

      I’m curious though- what would this press release say?

    29. Leon — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:37 pm  

      My point was that this is some blog in the greater scheme of things. Big difference between commenting here and being interviewed on Sky news.

      The size of your organisation is irrelavent if your savvy enough to play the media game to get your message across. Like I said your words, coming from you as being the founder of an org like MT is newsworthy.

      What you said above would be quite staggering for some people to hear and given you have an Asian girlfriend and are sensitive to the various currents of custom within at least one ethnic community it’d mean it’d be harder to dismiss you as some raving racist loon.

      As for what the press release should say, how about something along the lines of ‘Ashley something, founder of MT a org for mixed couples etc had the following to say about knife crime’. Or even ‘in light of the recent stabbing founder of a race relations organisation has laid blame at the feet of black community for the problems of knife crime’ etc.

      You could pad the rest out with suggestion on how to tackle it, details about your org and the usual contact details.

      But yeah, what you said, quite an eye brow raiser; you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?

    30. MixTogether — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:44 pm  

      Well, I’ll be speaking at this conference in a couple of weeks:

      http://www.pih.org.uk/events/agm2008.html

      I’ll have to walk a short way to get there…

      At the feet of which community would you lay the blame for these (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44334000/jpg/_44334009_teen-deaths-collage26.jpg) deaths?

    31. Leon — on 1st July, 2008 at 11:54 pm  

      So no press release then? No attempting to get your message to a wider audience. I’m surprised really, I actually thought you were a bit more ambitious than that.

      Ah yeah PiH, I’d attended it if I wasn’t out of the country at the time…

      At the feet of which community would you lay the blame for these (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44334000/jpg/_44334009_teen-deaths-collage26.jpg) deaths?

      The focus is on you and your massive assertion that this problem is the fault of the black community. You made the claim, which means you have to have the balls to back it up and go public or withdraw it.

    32. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:15 am  

      Marvin, should they also bugger off to another country if they don’t like the culture here?

      Not at all. Tolerance is the way forward.

      Thankyou #21. I thought progressive politics was all about ‘root causes’?

    33. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:17 am  

      My point, almost entirely was made by #21

    34. MixTogether — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:21 am  

      Leon,

      I’ll withdraw the assertion, no problem, if you can find ANYONE here who will argue convincingly that the blame for the vast majority of recent gun and knife crime (see the picture) does not lie within the black community.

      How’s that?

      Will check in tomorrow night, ready to withdraw.

    35. Ala — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:21 am  

      If most gun and knife crime is happening in the Black community, is that relevent? Unless it is something to do with their being Black, why point out an irrelevant common feature? You might as well point out that they all wear Nike. As for more relevant common denominators, how about the fact they’re all poor?

    36. MixTogether — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:24 am  

      ala- poverty blights the lives of ALL races in the UK, but as observed above, nearly all the perpetrators and victims of the current epedemic are black.

    37. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:27 am  

      MixTogether, I feel you have a noble cause, yet an incindenary way of going about things.

    38. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:34 am  

      So what? People who are young and black tend to kill people who are young and black?

      You solution is what?

    39. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:35 am  

      *and murderous

    40. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:37 am  

      I’m not a racist! Today I pointed out that President Bongo had referred to Mugabe as an ‘hero’. Yet I was met with suspicious stares. Why?

    41. MixTogether — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:41 am  

      marvin,

      “MixTogether, I feel you have a noble cause, yet an incindenary way of going about things”

      What can I say? I live in hope of positive changes effected at an incendiary speed! The right time for these issues to be conclusively resolved is yesterday…

      Good night, all.

    42. digitalcntrl — on 2nd July, 2008 at 1:12 am  

      “If most gun and knife crime is happening in the Black community, is that relevent? Unless it is something to do with their being Black, why point out an irrelevant common feature? You might as well point out that they all wear Nike. As for more relevant common denominators, how about the fact they’re all poor?”

      I don’t think that argument works here. The councilor stated it was muslim sensibilites that were offended, thus the common denominator, being muslim, is of relevance.

    43. digitalcntrl — on 2nd July, 2008 at 1:15 am  

      I don’t know whats worse, that this councilor is wasting the public’s and his time trying to voice these pointless concerns or the people who are outraged because others are outraged.

    44. Amrit — on 2nd July, 2008 at 1:16 am  

      This… Is… So… Stupid.

    45. Bert Rustle — on 2nd July, 2008 at 6:06 am  

      Leon 31 wrote … The focus is on you [MixTogether 30] and your massive assertion that this problem is the fault of the black community. You made the claim, which means you have to have the balls to back it up and go public or withdraw it. …

      Regarding black crime rates worldwide:

      Cross-national variation in violent crime rates

      From the discussion:

      … These results first corroborate predictions … that Blacks average higher rates of violent crime than do Whites and East Asians and … people
      of East Asian descent commit relatively fewer acts of violent crime than
      do those of European or African descent. Present results show that the population patterns in crime found within Britain, Canada, and the United
      States are more generalizable than is often supposed. This implies that some of the causes of race differences must be sought beyond the local conditions of particular countries or even groups of countries. …

      I would hazard a guess that this demonstrates that the framing by the Drive-By Media of acceptable opinions to the mindset described in Reporting Diversity has been largely successful.

    46. Bert Rustle — on 2nd July, 2008 at 6:07 am  

      Ala 35 wrote … If most gun and knife crime is happening in the Black community, is that relevent? Unless it is something to do with their being Black, why point out an irrelevant common feature? … Please see post 45.

      Ala 35 wrote … As for more relevant common denominators, how about the fact they’re all poor? … They are also all male. What is the predictive power of your classification? If poverty is a cause of such violence, why are there so few female perpetrators?

      Does poverty cause rape?

      In the UK the statistics are not readily available to me. However the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs has produced a series of spreadsheets here .
      The ratio against Euro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1. Follow the links for the details, which would be unbelievable if they were not produced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

      This data is referenced in article by Laurence Auster The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States.

      … In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

      What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

      The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. …

    47. NielsC — on 2nd July, 2008 at 8:37 am  

      Well MCB do have an opinion on guide dogs at least
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3087362.ece
      “Ibrahim Mogra, a senior imam at the MCB, who has overseen the review of teaching on guide dogs, said they could be justified as they served an “urgent practical purpose”.

      He said: “We found the Koran allows Muslims to use dogs for hunting. So if Muslims can eat a prey bitten by dogs, then there should not be a problem using them to guide you if you are blind”

      Guess dogs can be used for hunting criminals then ?
      And if thats okay, then it must be okay to advertise ?

    48. ashik — on 2nd July, 2008 at 8:41 am  

      Dogs are generally disliked by South Asians and not just Muslims because they are considered unclean. There are cultural and religious dimensions to this. Many South Asians are scared of dogs and think they are unpredictable creatures. Calling someone a dog eg. kuthar bachya (son of a dog) is a grave insult.

      For a Muslim going near a dog after ozu (ritual washing in preparation for prayer)invalidates it. Some people may take this further and believe that even handling a poster with a puppy on it invalidates ones state of cleanliness for prayer.

    49. ders — on 2nd July, 2008 at 9:08 am  

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgAJnzWsF7Q . dogs unclean?

    50. Mike — on 2nd July, 2008 at 9:11 am  

      I think the daily mail is correct to point out this story. The main reason not being that some Muslims are offended but that the police saw fit to apologize. If people feel a picture of a puppy is offensive I feel pity for them, but I don’t see why that should cause the general population to change its behaviour. Now if it had been a picture of a pussy then I could maybe understand.

    51. ders — on 2nd July, 2008 at 9:27 am  

      http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm

    52. billericaydicky — on 2nd July, 2008 at 10:22 am  

      One of the good things about this forum is how one small story opens up a lot of important issues. Naturally as soon as I saw the BNP being mentioned I sat up as we had been out for the last time mass leafleting two wards in outer East London where they are standing.

      What is coming out on the doorsteps and in the pubs is that seemingly insignificant things like the Scottish dog can be blown up out of all proportion and become yet another part of the urban myths that all extremists feed on.

      The dog wasn’t mentioned, it won’t be long, but all sorts of other things were, in particular the new bill being prepared for Parliament which discriminates against white males in job interviews. Now even allowing for the fact that Harriet Harman is bonkers it beggars belief that at this time of increasing suport for the far right anyone could even think of such a stupid bit of legislation, Nick Griffin must be rubbing his hands with glee.

      This only goes to show how totally out of touch Labour is with its own grass roots. The by election in Chadwell Heath was caused by the resignation of a good, hardworking Labour councillor who was sick of many other councillors doing absolutely nothing except draw their allowances. This is one of the reasons that the BNP is making inroads. Labour are seen as out of touch and arrogant and it is the fascists who are out knocking on doors and taking up peoples concerns.

      Searchlight have opened a debate on where the anti fascist movement is going and the tactics to be used against the BNP. This has in part been sparked by the failure of the methods of the Socialist Workers Party controlled Unite Against Fascism.

      The Searchlight position is spelled out in the leading article in the July edition of the magazine. I don’t know if it is on line yet but will be soon. Try http://www.hopenothate.org.uk.Where_Now. The editor Nick Lowles has thrown the debate open and wants to hear what people have to say. Perhaps Sunny could reproduce the article, if so get in touch with Nick at nick@stopthebnp.org.uk.

      Mixtogther,
      Must say I hadn’t heard of your group before. Let me give you an instance of what is like to be in a mixed race relationship. In 1964 when I was eighteen I met a black woman of the same age in a club in the West End in those days just about the only place that black and white people could meet each other.

      After a few months the thing fizzled out because there was nowhere we could go because of the hostility from both blacks and whites. Whites assumed she was a prostitute and blacks, including her own family,thought she had ideas above her station and should stick to her own kind.

      What a change to today! How you are going to suport people in mixed race relationships I really don’t know. The climate is such that I don’t think they need support, nobody cares about things like that even a lot of BNP voters.

      What is interesting are the articles and letters in the two black papers The Voice and New Nation. There is a strand of black opinion that still says stick to your own. Once again that raises the question of what is black and the African Caribbean elite appear to be still operating the “one drop” rule. I wouldn’t worry to much about Leon, I think he is some kind of embittered Trot. Interesting comments here, let’s see where this one goes.

    53. Leon — on 2nd July, 2008 at 11:05 am  

      I’ll withdraw the assertion, no problem, if you can find ANYONE here who will argue convincingly that the blame for the vast majority of recent gun and knife crime (see the picture) does not lie within the black community.

      How’s that?

      Will check in tomorrow night, ready to withdraw.

      So you’re going to go public with your assertion then (I’m actually off to Wales later and not online for sometime after)? Interesting, I look forward to seeing you on Sky News! :D

    54. ders — on 2nd July, 2008 at 11:10 am  

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz2LesTESWs urban myth?

    55. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 12:33 pm  

      billericaydicky that’s a very interesting article on Searchlight

    56. modernity — on 2nd July, 2008 at 3:41 pm  

      Sunny,

      so in your view it is right to be upset about a picture of a dog, but not to make a fuss if someone were shouting down a megaphone at you??

      you’ll have to explain the distinction to me, I can’t quite see it

    57. Hermes123 — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:17 pm  

      Sunny in on a loser here trying to attack the Daily Mail on the one hand and defend a Muslim nutcase on the other. The Scottish councillor is an idiot and shopkeepers who think a cute puppy picture would be offensive need their heads examined. As for the Daily Mail…can you blame them for picking up on a great little story like this. You expect that from the DM

    58. BenSix — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:19 pm  

      “The main reason not being that some Muslims are offended but that the police saw fit to apologize.”

      So that’s why the banner headline is “Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat”.

      “If people feel a picture of a puppy is offensive I feel pity for them, but I don’t see why that should cause the general population to change its behaviour.”

      The puppy is still there - go forth and bask in the cuteness.

    59. tim — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:22 pm  

      Has anyone yet found a real person who was “upset” by this dog picture?

    60. cjcjc — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:23 pm  

      The puppy is gorgeous.

      If only the headline had read
      Supine Police cave in to self-publicising git.

      That would have covered it better.

    61. justforfun — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:33 pm  

      First thing I noticed - There is no Tartan anywhere in the picture!

      Justforfun

    62. BenSix — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:36 pm  

      Mike,

      Sorry, my last comment sounded really rude. The style of the Mail rubs off on me.

      “Has anyone yet found a real person who was “upset” by this dog picture?”

      There were ‘complaints’, ie. maybe one or two.

      Ben

    63. Jim Jay — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:48 pm  

      It seems to me that if some shop keepers didn’t want to put up a card advertising the police it might not have been the dog part that they found most disturbing. Maybe it was the institution they didn’t want to support.

      The story pitched the way the Mail pitches it sounds like rubbish to me - but there may actually be a rational kernal to this story.

    64. marvin — on 2nd July, 2008 at 4:56 pm  

      Has anyone yet found a real person who was “upset” by this dog picture?

      Ask Councillor Mohammed Asif.

      What do you mean it sounds like rubbish Jim? Have you read the quotes from Asif?

    65. BenSix — on 2nd July, 2008 at 5:01 pm  

      “What do you mean it sounds like rubbish Jim? Have you read the quotes from Asif?”

      I’ll repeat the headline again: “Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat”.

    66. Alec Macpherson — on 2nd July, 2008 at 5:04 pm  

      >> That’s their right of course.

      Except it was Mohammed Asif speaking. You know, one man.

      >> So let me get this straight. If I want to publicise something that you find offensive, you should just get over it?

      Depends. If the literature was written in such a way to deliberately or effectively cause offense - such as the irrelevent promotion of lap dancing to support crime protection/prevention, purposefully seeking out Jewish or Muslim organizations and requiring them to display irrelevent images of pigs, telling “brown people” to vote a certain way - then no. If, however, it was an accepted and benign cultural image (such a soppy doggie is alert and prevents crime), then the taken offence is the offendee’s problem. Just as the offence I find in telling a certain group to vote specifically Tory is, ultimately, my problem.

      Individual shops can, I suppose, decline to display certain posters (although refusing to co-operate with Tayside police because of this would be a different matter).

    67. Unitalian — on 2nd July, 2008 at 5:11 pm  

      It’s correct that the sin is not so much in the complaint as the reaction, however, visitng from HP rather than my usual direct route, i was genuinely shocked by the story that preceded it, one that I do not think should be shrugged off.

      http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/02/british-muslim-initiative-we-resent-the-evil-jew-in-britain/

    68. mixtogether — on 2nd July, 2008 at 10:23 pm  

      billericaydicky

      “How you are going to suport people in mixed race relationships I really don’t know.”

      Then I know you haven’t looked at the MixTogether site. We support couples who face strident opposition to their mixed relationships from family or community. A brief dip into our ‘Experiences’ section will tell you pretty much all you need to know. These couples need a great deal of help and support in order to stay together- and in many cases just to be open about their relationship.

      I would be happy to write a piece for the ‘where now’ site, but only if it would stand a real chance of bringing focus onto the racism that is rife within minority communities.

      The vast majority of couples using our site face racism from the Asian community against the non-Asian partner- yet when do you ever hear of this at supposedly anti-racist events?

      What truly honest politicians need to understand about the rehabilitation of the BNP is that it is driven by supposedly anti-racist actions that target exclusively white racism. This goes increasingly against people’s real life experiences in the UK.

      Why is the BNP the only party making the point that racism cuts both ways? And why is anyone surprised that this message is winning them votes?

    69. Kulvinder — on 2nd July, 2008 at 10:49 pm  

      I’m more curious about the reaction to this story than the story itself; although i think, and i believe most people think the picture innocuous a single councillor was apparently of the opinion it had the possibility to be offensive. I can’t find the minutes of the meeting anywhere online so im unable to give context to his remarks but even if he did say that; so what?

      His job on the board is probably to raise issues like this if he feels it necessary. Far more ridiculous things have been said in the past by local councillors and far far more ridiculous things will be said in the future.

      He simply gave his opinion; that his opinion reached the attention of the wider press is more a hint of national paranoia than anything. Paul Dacre and his ilk well understand that their readers want a sense of rightous outrage, you can condemn them for pandering, but i seriously doubt any of the journalists who covered this story genuinely felt the same fist shaking indignation as their readers.

      They know it wasn’t much of a story.

      Hell, even I know that Islam has no beef with dogs per se.

      Do teachers use the word ‘beef’ as a noun?!

    70. Kulvinder — on 2nd July, 2008 at 10:57 pm  

      Why is the BNP the only party making the point that racism cuts both ways?

      I’ve never heard of a mainstream party declare that bigotry wasn’t an issue amongst minority groups.

      nb Bert at #45, linking to Rushton in order to support the idea of the black criminal is a tad obvious, and not at all enlightening.

    71. Ravi Naik — on 2nd July, 2008 at 11:18 pm  

      The vast majority of couples using our site face racism from the Asian community against the non-Asian partner- yet when do you ever hear of this at supposedly anti-racist events?

      What truly honest politicians need to understand about the rehabilitation of the BNP is that it is driven by supposedly anti-racist actions that target exclusively white racism. This goes increasingly against people’s real life experiences in the UK.”

      You must be kidding me. The BNP is a political party whose core ideology is that every non-white person is an illegal in this country. Moreover, that the presence of non-whites in this country is a menace to the white race.

      That is, unlike bigoted Asian in-laws, it could have the power to deport us (in the best case scenario) if it has enough votes.

      (Asian racism - specially towards Blacks - is a well known and unfortunate problem, but there is a reason why the BNP gets more attention).

    72. Ravi Naik — on 2nd July, 2008 at 11:48 pm  

      The irony of this post is that this Daily Mail article is not an opinion piece - it just reports the story and quotes a councillor. I don’t see the “outrage” in this article.

      Many of the readers of this article, on the other hand, will be outraged - and I am not just talking about Islamophobes. For instance, the article fails to mention how many complaints were received, or how many shopkeepers refused to comply. So, it all points to the oldest trick of the book to demonise any group: just pick a few village idiots to paint everyone with the same brush. For people like myself, it is outrageous that the Daily Mail has done another hit job against Muslims with the help of the councillor.

      I am afraid that “we living in a flexible, liberal country” and “shopkeepers can put any the posters they want” misses the larger point. This article - written in a neutral tone - is meant to create further animosity against Muslims and the concept of multi-cultural society - to say that there is almost a pathological dissociation between mainstream culture and “those people”. I also think it is damaging that the police is forced to apologise for something the shopkeepers are not even forced to do, was not done in slightest malice, and it probably affects one or two radical nuts in the community.

    73. mixtogether — on 3rd July, 2008 at 12:01 am  

      Ravi Naik

      Your post illustrates the exact illusion that allows minorities to exempt themselves from the rules.

      You cannot lay down a set of rules for one section of the community that you are not prepared to adhere to yourself. It’s just rank hypocrisy, at best…

      You can’t say we don’t like the BNP but we are prepared to allow bigoted parents and racism between minority communities as a supposedly lesser evil. It’s either wrong or it isn’t.

      If you are allowed to be dogmatic towards white racists but at the same time turn a blind eye towards other forms of racism, what moral high ground do you have? Why shouldn’t whites be prepared to tolerate a little bit of racism on the exact same grounds, for what they might believe is a good enough reason?

      Do as you would be done to. Or don’t do it at all.

    74. douglas clark — on 3rd July, 2008 at 12:18 am  

      Mixtogether,

      I was, initially persuaded that you were arguing truth to power. I happen to think that men and women should be free to find relationships free of race, religion, whatever, which should not affront anyone.

      Which is what I thought you were saying, early on. But you extend the arguement beyond reason, I think, when you say this:

      If you are allowed to be dogmatic towards white racists but at the same time turn a blind eye towards other forms of racism, what moral high ground do you have? Why shouldn’t whites be prepared to tolerate a little bit of racism on the exact same grounds, for what they might believe is a good enough reason?

      I’d suggest you are BNP or worse. No-one I know here thinks that any sort of racism is OK. Racism is a mere BNP trick about power for wankers….

    75. Ravi Naik — on 3rd July, 2008 at 12:46 am  

      “If you are allowed to be dogmatic towards white racists but at the same time turn a blind eye towards other forms of racism, what moral high ground do you have?…”

      I have no idea where you got this stupid idea that I tolerate brown racism, certainly not from my post (#71) where I acknowledge that Asian racism is a real problem. I understand that #71 is a long comment and you got lost, so let me tell you where I say it: it’s in the last paragraph. Within parenthesis.

      I see no difference between white racists and brown racists. In fact, if anything, I feel more ashamed about Asian racism because I believe we should know better. My rant against what you wrote is that you are comparing individual racists (doesn’t matter which colour) with a racist political party.

      Do you understand the difference between the power that the BNP could have and how it would affect the lives of millions, and the power of individual racists (no matter what colour)? If yes, then you will understand why the BNP gets more attention than bigoted Asian in-laws. If not, then you are either dishonest, or just plain daft.

    76. Don — on 3rd July, 2008 at 12:49 am  

      Kulvinder,
      Do teachers use the word ‘beef’ as a noun?!

      I’m off duty.

      douglas,

      Beat me to it.

    77. Bert Rustle — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:10 am  

      Kulvinder 70 wrote … linking to Rushton in order to support the idea of the black criminal is a tad obvious, and not at all enlightening. …

      Linking to a statistical analysis of INTERPOL data which demonstrates that The median number of violent crimes per 100,000 population were: 7 East Asian countries—34; 45 European countries—42; and 22 African and Black Caribbean countries—149, respectively. … while wealth was negatively related to crime across European or East Asian countries, it was positively related to crime for the African and Black Caribbean countries (i.e., the wealthier an African or Black Caribbean country, the greater its rate of violent crime). is very enlightening, in my opinion. Please provide links to other studies which contradict this analysis. The paper does not “support the idea of the black criminal”, it demonstrates the relative difference of rates in violent crime, as recorded by INTERPOL. What do you mean b y “a tad obvious”? Please be precise.

      In comment 46, I linked to U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs rape and sexual assault data. The ratio against Euro-Americans by Afro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1. A tad obvious?

    78. AltoStratus — on 3rd July, 2008 at 11:17 am  

      Sunny, when did you become a complete wanker?

    79. douglas clark — on 3rd July, 2008 at 11:48 am  

      Ravi,

      I had a huge post up. But it is irrelevant. Fact is, I think you are ace.

      Wish I had your patience…

    80. Andrew — on 3rd July, 2008 at 4:04 pm  

      The local paper takes a more reasonable view:

      http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

    81. Ravi Naik — on 3rd July, 2008 at 5:19 pm  

      “I had a huge post up. But it is irrelevant. Fact is, I think you are ace.

      Many thanks, Douglas. The feeling is mutual. :)

      The local paper takes a more reasonable view

      Yeah, the Daily Mail must be really embarrassed…

    82. BenSix — on 3rd July, 2008 at 5:51 pm  

      Ravi,

      “Yeah, the Daily Mail must be really embarrassed…”

      I can’t wait to see the follow-up article.

      Lucky, really, because I’m sure that I’d be waiting for a while.

    83. marvin — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:02 pm  

      So what was Councillor Asif playing at, then? He’s the plonker responsible for all this. The Mail quoted him through out.

    84. marvin — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:05 pm  

      Bit more here http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/03/newsstory11597077t0.asp

      You can’t really blame the media when they are just quoting government officials.

      The Courier does seem to get it.

      Despite the controversy caused by his comments, Mr Asif has, to date, declined to clarify his position on the postcards.

      Despite numerous attempts by The Courier to contact him, he has remained unavailable for comment for more than 48 hours.

    85. Don — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:18 pm  

      Could the fact that the rozzers neglected to run it past the diversity adviser have anything to do with it? I’d speculate that a punctured sense of self-importance is somewhere at the bottom of it.

      As the letter in the Courier pointed out, you never see a corner shop that doesn’t stock dog food. The issue never existed. As for Mr Asif, I repeat - point and laugh is the appropriate response.

    86. douglas clark — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:29 pm  

      Andrew,

      Thanks for that. You’ve got to love the cat owner:

      Steve Ross, of Fleming Gardens, said, “Tayside Police may be forced to spend valuable funds on changing the postcard they have produced to advertise their new non-emergency phone number because a certain section of the community consider a dog to be dirty—just let’s get on with our lives and preserve British culture.

      “As a cat owner I don’t care too much for dogs but I do about the spending of what I assume to be public money to pacify a few.”

      Now there is a balanced opinion!

    87. Don — on 3rd July, 2008 at 7:39 pm  

      Surely he meant ‘member of the cat-owning community’.

    88. Kulvinder — on 3rd July, 2008 at 8:11 pm  

      Linking to a statistical analysis of INTERPOL data which demonstrates that… is very enlightening, in my opinion.

      Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

      The paper does not “support the idea of the black criminal”, it demonstrates the relative difference of rates in violent crime, as recorded by INTERPOL. What do you mean b y “a tad obvious”? Please be precise.

      I’ve always been precise!

      Rushton’s views on race and society are well known; there was nothing about the paper that was ‘new’. I’m unsure why you’re quering my assertion of its intention to genetically link race to crime - and specifically black people to crime - since that is a fundamental aspect of Rushton’s r-K theory. If nothing else i refer you to the first sentence of the discussion section.

      The paper very much supports, in fact it was explicitly written to support the idea of ‘the black criminal’ (ie the ‘black race’ averages higher violent crimes than others). I’m uncertain what studies you want that contradict that theory, i could link to arguments against Rushton but that wouldn’t really be a different point of view in keeping with the paper nor can i link to anyone who used that same data to present a different theory, in addition im limited - in fairness - to papers that are published and freely available, the alternative would be only pointing to the abstract.

      So in the vein of comparing serious cross-national crime rates with the intention of explaining why, read this(click manual download). I’ll point out that the hypotheses that paper was trying to test regarding the links between cross national crime rates, legitimacy and economic inequality didn’t work out exactly as they planned, nonetheless the basis of the research was the previous studies showing a positive correlation between economic deprivation and cross-national murder rates (ie im pointing out their explanations for the phenomena didn’t correlate adequately, but that phenomena - the murder rate - was based on economic inequality and not race).

      What they did find (which i found interesting) was that perceptions of illigitmacy (economic or political) positively affected the homicide rate in developed nations.

      Regarding the rape of black women by white men or vice versa, that isn’t the rape rate per head but with regards to another race - ie white men also rape white women. More black men per head of the black population in the US do commit rape than the comparable rate in white men, but the crime figures aren’t as simplistic as you made out. If you look at the tables for the victimisation rates by race and annual income things are far less clear (table 15(b) for 2005).

      For those earning $7,500 - $14,999 the rate of white people committing assualt is higher than that of black people; for those earning $15,000 - $24,999 its higher for black people as it is when comparisons are made $25,000 - $34,999, but white people have a higher comparable rate to black people for those earning $35,000 - $49,999. That kind of fluctuation wouldn’t occur in a simplisitc race based assessment of crime.

    89. Bert Rustle — on 3rd July, 2008 at 9:34 pm  

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. … I agree.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … Rushton’s views on race and society are well known … Please explain how Rushton’s views on race and society or indeed any other topics affect the statistical analysis of empirical data which is presented in the paper.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … I’m unsure why you’re quering my assertion of its intention to genetically link race to crime … I’m unsure why you’re asserting that a statistical analysis of empirical data has an intention. Do you mean the intention of the author? Do you mean the intention of the referees of the paper? Do you mean the intention of the editors of the journal? By which mechanism do you know these intentions? Does this assertion apply to any other papers which any of these editors have published in any other journals? If so, which editors, journals or papers? If not, why not?

      More generally, is the data employed doctored? Is the statistical analysis invalid? Are the conclusions drawn not supported by the analysis?

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … The paper … was explicitly written to support the idea of ‘the black criminal’ … Please support this statement. Please be precise.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … I’m uncertain what studies you want that contradict that theory … I would be interested to see supported criticisms of the data, methods or conclusions of the paper. In this instance r-K Theory is not pertinent, however I would be grateful for quantitative references to it.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … i could link to arguments against Rushton but that wouldn’t really be a different point of view in keeping with the paper … By which mechanism can arguments against Rushton (in)validate paper(s) (co-)authored by Rushton?

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … nor can i link to anyone who used that same data to present a different theory … Which would be indeed be helpful.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … im limited - in fairness - to papers that are published and freely available, the alternative would be only pointing to the abstract. …. I would be grateful for any such references, I am unable to follow the link http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/4/231 which you kindly provided; a standard reference would be helpful.

      Kulvinder 88 wrote … the crime figures aren’t as simplistic as you made out. … Either the statement “The ratio against Euro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1.” is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs rape and sexual assault data or it is not. I contend that it is. If you dispute this, please detail why.

      An article by Laurence Auster may be of general interest The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States .

      … In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

      What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

      The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. …

    90. Kulvinder — on 4th July, 2008 at 12:17 am  

      Please explain how Rushton’s views on race and society or indeed any other topics affect the statistical analysis of empirical data which is presented in the paper.

      If his views were different the tools he’d use would be affected by his views. For the sake of argument there is no stochastic calculus present in his paper.

      Do you mean the intention of the author?

      Yup.

      By which mechanism do you know these intentions?

      What mechanism!?! Writing?.

      The opening sentence of the first paragraph gives the game away

      ‘J. P. Rushton (2000) has proposed an evolutionary life-history theory
      to account for racial differences in a host of demographic, populational,
      and environmental variables. The theory proposes a gene-based Negroid-
      Caucasoid-Mongoloid gradient of r/K reproductive strategies.’

      The analysis of any data is in relation to that hypotheses.

      Does this assertion apply to any other papers which any of these editors have published in any other journals? If so, which editors, journals or papers?

      Very probably. Although its impossible to give an account of every paper Rushton has ever written as i haven’t read them all, every one i have read has been along the same lines and certainly Rushton hasn’t made any public statement that fundamentally contracdicted the opinions he expressed in those papers that i have read. The list of journals and papers can be found under publications.

      More generally, is the data employed doctored? Is the statistical analysis invalid? Are the conclusions drawn not supported by the analysis?

      This depends on what you mean by ‘doctored’ he is certainly no Jan Hendrik Schön. The ‘sums’ for lack of a better word are correct, but no the conclusions drawn are not in my opinion and in the opinion of the prevailing consensus supported by the analysis.

      I would be interested to see supported criticisms of the data, methods or conclusions of the paper. In this instance r-K Theory is not pertinent, however I would be grateful for quantitative references to it.

      This is utterly utterly brilliant. r-K theory (as used by Rushton) is mentioned in the title of the paper, its mentioned in the opening sentence of the opening paragraph. Its mentioned in the opening sentence of the discussion yet you say it isn’t pertinent!! I have to say this is THE most novel debating strategy i have ever come across.

      Just deny it all.

      I can’t find a responce specific to that paper - which isn’t unsual as noone has the time to respond in that way (paper to paper to paper), but taking in Rushton’s hypotheses, read that

      By which mechanism can arguments against Rushton (in)validate paper(s) (co-)authored by Rushton?

      If the underlying premise is the same in those different papers he co-authors; the criticisms against his particular use of r-K don’t magically dissapear when he publishes that same opinion in another paper.

      Regarding the paper i linked to, i’ve tried the link and it works fine (i reiterate you have to click manual download), here it is again in full copied and pasted from the site

      http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/231

      if you still can’t see it go to sage and search for ‘Economic Inequality, Legitimacy, and Cross-National Homicide Rates’

      The ratio against Euro-Americans is in excess of 3,500 to 1.” is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs rape and sexual assault data or it is not. I contend that it is. If you dispute this, please detail why.

      You’re saying (and the statistics support) more black men rape white women than white men rape black women, that doesn’t take into account the TOTAL number of rapes comitted by either demographic.

      More white collar fraud is committed by white men than say latinos; that doesn’t provide any insight into the total amount of fraud committed by either group.

    91. Andrew — on 4th July, 2008 at 2:29 am  

      #84. Councillor Asif is now trying to wriggle out of this:

      http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/04/newsstory11603039t0.asp

    92. Bert Rustle — on 4th July, 2008 at 7:18 am  

      Kulvinder 90 wrote … r-K theory … is mentioned in the title … yet you say it isn’t pertinent …

      I have not asserted the validity or otherwise of any particular theory, rather I linked to and abstracted from a paper which includes an statistical analysis of empirical data. To whatever extent this statistical analysis supports any particular theory is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. Indeed, you state … The ’sums’ for lack of a better word are correct … so we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis.

      Further, that the intentions of the author(s) is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. For example, reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, yet this has no bearing on the validity of his calculations or of his theories.

      Kulvinder 90 wrote … you’re saying (and the statistics support) more black men rape white women than white men rape black women … so we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis.

      Kulvinder 90 wrote … that doesn’t take into account the TOTAL number of rapes comitted by either demographic. … This is an additional point raised by you, not me.

      Kulvinder 90 wrote … this is THE most novel debating strategy i have ever come across. … It could be construed that you are employing a debating strategy where you argue points which I have not made, which is neither novel nor helpful. However it could also be that we are simply at cross-purposes and indeed we appear to be in agreement regarding the statistical analysis which I highlighted.

      To what extent r-K Theory is a “dog” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

    93. Ravi Naik — on 4th July, 2008 at 11:27 am  

      Ala 35 wrote … As for more relevant common denominators, how about the fact they’re all poor? … They are also all male. What is the predictive power of your classification? If poverty is a cause of such violence, why are there so few female perpetrators?
      Does poverty cause rape?

      Under the same light, one could ask the same thing about race: if it is a black-thing, why are offenders of rape/assault predominantly males, and not females - regardless of race? Other factors that seem to influence the chances of an individual being an offender of violent crime includes: individuals born in low-income dysfunctional families, where one or both parents are absent or abusive, being born in tough communities, etc. Needless to say, these problems accentuate generation after generation.

      There is some correlation between being black and violent crime: but you are falling for the same old fallacy that correlation means causation: being black causes you to do crime, which is the mantra of white power groups. The correlation comes from the factors I just pointed out: there are more African-americans than whites living in poverty, where parents have little education, where fathers are absent, etc. Get it? Whites under the same conditions will be equally likely to to be involved in that sort of crime.

      And now let’s look at the figure you have presented several times.

      ” In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
      What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”

      That’s a fact. But not all the facts, and cherry-picking one statistic and hiding the whole picture is a damn lie. The complete picture is this: whites committed 50.000 rapes in 2005, while blacks 75.000. Blacks are still over-represented (but it gives a slightly more complete picture than saying Whites raped 0 to 10 females with some particular physical characteristics).

      Rushton’s assertations are incredibly outdated and flawed. He basically says that there is a tradeoff between your penis and atheletic capabilities, and your brain. Get it? Blacks have a larger penis, whites a medium-size penis, and (East) Asians the smallest. The brains are in inverse proportion to that. I have never heard biologists claim there is a link between one the other, but let’s leave it to people in psychology to conjure the mighty powers of statistics to come with these conclusions.

      To what extent r-K Theory is a “dog” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present

      The r-K Theory is nothing new. It is just a rehash of the racial scientific crap that came out a 100 years ago. It was wrong back then, and it is still wrong now until biologists and geneticists (the proper scientists) find a link.

    94. Bert Rustle — on 4th July, 2008 at 8:12 pm  

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … if it is a black-thing, why are offenders of rape/assault predominantly males, and not females - regardless of race? … It is not obvious to me how a female can rape a male. Do you mean why is it that nearly all males are more violent and aggressive than females, whatever their race? As far as I am aware this is a characteristic of male primates generally, not just Homo sapiens. It would be helpful to me if you could present this point another way as I am not at all sure I have given an adequate reply.

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Other factors that seem to influence … Do you mean that they are positively correlated?

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … the chances of an individual being an offender of violent crime includes: individuals born in low-income dysfunctional families, where one or both parents are absent or abusive, being born in tough communities … Are you saying that correlation means causation? Many individuals with this background are pillars of the community.

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … There is some correlation between being black and violent crime: but you are falling for the same old fallacy that correlation means causation … Where have I asserted or implied that correlation means causation?

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Whites under the same conditions will be equally likely to to be involved in that sort of crime. … This statement contradicts the INTERPOL and U.S. Department of Justice data linked to above. Please provide a quantitative reference supporting your assertion.

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … That’s a fact. But not all the facts, and cherry-picking one statistic and hiding the whole picture is a damn lie. … I provide a link to all the spreadsheets, not a particular one, which is not cherry-picking, in my opinion. Kulvinder above has apparently already done some analysis on this data.

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … The complete picture is this: whites committed 50.000 rapes in 2005, while blacks 75.000. Blacks are still over-represented … To clarify, the point of the quote is on victim selection, not on the relative rate of rape perpetrated by whites or blacks.

      Ravi Naik 93 wrote … Rushton’s assertations are incredibly outdated and flawed. … I would be grateful if you could provide a reference which in your opinion gives a better explanation of the mass of empirical data than Rushton’s current r-K Theory.

      To what extent r-K Theory is a “pup” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

    95. Ravi Naik — on 4th July, 2008 at 8:47 pm  

      “This statement contradicts the INTERPOL and U.S. Department of Justice data linked to above.”

      Where exactly does it contradict?

      “To clarify, the point of the quote is on victim selection, not on the relative rate of rape perpetrated by whites or blacks. “

      So what can one conclude with victim selection?

      “I would be grateful if you could provide a reference which in your opinion gives a better explanation of the mass of empirical data than Rushton’s current r-K Theory.”

      You must be kidding me. r-K theory has no scientific, biological or genetic basis. It’s funny that a psychologist would promote such theories. Much of the discrepancy can be easily explained based on what I’ve laid down in #93.

    96. Kulvinder — on 4th July, 2008 at 11:24 pm  

      Further, that the intentions of the author(s) is not pertinent to the validity of the statistical analysis itself. For example, reportedly Isaac Newton was a mystic, yet this has no bearing on the validity of his calculations or of his theories.

      Oh i see, you just wanted to make the point that Rushton was good at sums. Right.

      To what extent r-K Theory is a “pup” will no doubt emerge in the fullness of time; it is clearly heretical at present.

      Political correctness gone mad innit.

    97. Ravi Naik — on 5th July, 2008 at 1:03 pm  

      “Political correctness gone mad innit.”

      What a depressive paper. I didn’t know how powerful and mainstream these racial “scientists” were in the 60′s, and how active they were to undermine racial integration in schools at that time.

    98. marvin — on 7th July, 2008 at 10:47 am  

      Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees

      Not the Daily Hate, but The Times.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.