Cronulla: Mass Psychology and Violence
Dec. 13th, 2005 09:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipAs violence rocks Sydney and shock-jocks claim responsibility (He assured his huge audience he "understood" why that famous text message went out and he read it right through again on air. "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day …")
An ethnic gang beats up some life-savers because they are the wrong "colour". Five thousand thug descend on the area and pelt innocent women with beer bottles because they "look mid-eastern". More violence continues overnight. I find myself arguing with people (and I use that term loosely) on usenet who claim that this is the beginnings of the "White Revolution" against multiculturalism.
What is the problem here? The problem is about assigning group characteristics to individual actions. The problem is seeking group membership to the violent exclusion of others. Beating up lifesavers because they are not Lebanese is the same idiotic violence as pelting women with beer-bottles because they look like they might be.
Of course, because he is a racist, the Prime Minister won't call it racism.
Interestingly, the Redfern riots were marked by their lack of racism even if they were carried out by one ethnic group - their target were the forces of authority ("You could interview every Aboriginal kid down there that comes from The Block, and the majority will tell you to your face... that they've all been bashed by the police," said Lyle Munro.)
I'm sick to death of this stupid country.
EDIT
An eye-witness account, why Melbourne doesn't have this problem. On the question of "ethnic rapes". The cause? Monoculturalism.
An ethnic gang beats up some life-savers because they are the wrong "colour". Five thousand thug descend on the area and pelt innocent women with beer bottles because they "look mid-eastern". More violence continues overnight. I find myself arguing with people (and I use that term loosely) on usenet who claim that this is the beginnings of the "White Revolution" against multiculturalism.
What is the problem here? The problem is about assigning group characteristics to individual actions. The problem is seeking group membership to the violent exclusion of others. Beating up lifesavers because they are not Lebanese is the same idiotic violence as pelting women with beer-bottles because they look like they might be.
Of course, because he is a racist, the Prime Minister won't call it racism.
Interestingly, the Redfern riots were marked by their lack of racism even if they were carried out by one ethnic group - their target were the forces of authority ("You could interview every Aboriginal kid down there that comes from The Block, and the majority will tell you to your face... that they've all been bashed by the police," said Lyle Munro.)
I'm sick to death of this stupid country.
EDIT
An eye-witness account, why Melbourne doesn't have this problem. On the question of "ethnic rapes". The cause? Monoculturalism.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 11:27 pm (UTC)Little Johnny is just, as always, playing the "everything is OK on my watch" card. It's such a pro-forma for him I don't even listen to his responses anymore - I can even predit his expression and tone of voice. He's a programmed robot, I swear.
I doubt he even thought about the issue enough to link it to his own beliefs.
How's that NZ plan coming along? :)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 11:48 pm (UTC)Jones may have actually engaged in sedition. It was certainly borderline.
As for little Johnny, I don't think there is much doubt that he enjoys a little bit of racially-motivated violence every now and then. After all, if he can divide working people and distract them from his agenda that's all well and good.
I don't think we've had a PM as racist as him since Stanley Bruce.
New Zealand plan is moving along very quickly. Up a notch one may say.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 12:37 am (UTC)Ahha... That would be interesting indeed! Perhaps some people from the Australian-Arabic Council...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 02:30 am (UTC)While the irony would indeed be quite succulent and delicious, I really hope it doesn't come to that. Mainly... because... *tic* *twitch*... I would have to side with Jones because there is NO WAY I would ever support an individual being done under those laws that were just pushed through.
We already have pre-existing racial vilification laws. And the shockjocks have been spouting rubbish that should've had them charged on *those* for years. Let's do the fucker on them.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 02:44 am (UTC)I understand that as well...
Given what he said, I'd be surprised if Jones isn't charged with incitement to violence. Despite some caveats, he certainly wound people up..
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 02:56 am (UTC)Heh. I worded that badly and you still got it. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 03:01 am (UTC)I have a strong sense of non-contradiction.
One doesn't oppose sedition laws and then try to implement them on someone you don't like.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 03:08 am (UTC)'zackly.
Oh, btw, your call to being up for a spot of sedition t'other month... did any good ideas/suggestions come out of that?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 03:54 am (UTC)Well,
Effectively you need an organisation that supports the violent overthrow of the state or encourages invasion from a foreign power.
Personally, I like the idea of Canada invading Australia. Or Sweden. Or even Brazil.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:41 am (UTC)It certainly has Irony going for it by the truckload.
Besides, the proportion of ex-pats could make it an almost peaceful overthrow :)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:53 am (UTC)They could start by taking over Sydney beaches ;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 03:08 am (UTC)I was thinking something similar this morning when i read about Jones's comments. I'd imagine 'sedition' would only apply for incitement against the state, but even calling for him to be charged with helping incite a crime could be used as justification for applying sedition provisions. Especially if it related to him reading out ('reporting') the contents of the text message, it would probably sit very near the press restrictions that journalists in particular are concerned about.
And even if he was convicted, it probably wouldn't hurt his career, and we'd have to suffer the nauseating spectacle of Alan Jones, Martyr for Freedom of Speech.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 03:56 am (UTC)Such a matyr would unfortunately reduce the cause of free speech significantly.
Damn commitment to free speech. It means you have support speech you don't like!