BS: Bigots

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:41 PM

Boom boom:

I have a headache from reading this thread
I have a palpitation baby stuck in my head
Three miles of fix it with a needle and thread
Five days of dieting on water and bread
Another day filled with see what he said
I need a pillow and an hour in bed

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:35 PM

The majority of the sexual abus was against teenage youths between eleven and fourteen and young adults between fourteen and seventeen.
This was not paedophilia, but simple homosexual abuse by male clerics.
Homosexuals are over represented in the priesthood, some studies reckon between 20 and 30%...probably due to the celicaby rule.
I blame the Church for the continuation of this rule, which encourages so many homosexuals to join the priesthood

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM

Big Al Whittle: "I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual."

Big Al Whittle: "I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions."

THEY find it offensive to call a homosexual a homosexual?????? Boy! That speaks volumes!!

Jim Carroll: "You attempted to claim that clerical child abuse was due to the "fact" that the Catholic Church was the haunt of homosexuals."

Well, I guess if the clergy was only molesting little girls, you could call them 'rapists'...but being as having sex with the same sex as each other, Homosexual would be the correct term, wouldn't it?
Wait a minute, I got it....like the word 'gay' it's an attempt to soften the blow...no pun intended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 PM

Big Al Whittle: "I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual."

Big Al Whittle: "I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions."

THEY find it offensive to call a homosexual a homosexual?????? Boy! That speaks volumes!!

Jim Carroll: "You attempted to claim that clerical child abuse was due to the "fact" that the Catholic Church was the haunt of homosexuals."

Well, I guess if the clergy was only molesting little girls, you could call them 'rapists'...but being as having sex with the same sex as each other, Homosexual would be the correct term, wouldn't it?
Wait a minute, I got it....like the word 'gay' it's an attempt to soften the blow...no pun intended!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 11:45 AM

Could you please point out where the bigotry is in what Keith, Sanity or myself has said?.

Our names were brought into this discussion by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 08:37 AM

I feel that strongly-stated racism, bigotry etc can be dangerous in that they incite others to subscribe to the same mindset. Inciting hatred for race, sexuality etc is (as I understand it) a crime here in UK. One can have private views, which as has been said here, everyone has to some extent, but one should refrain from proclaiming them. I can see how this could be seen as censorship, but we live in society, and our words/actions have consequences. A bigoted standpoint causes pain, fear and resentment, and encourages the bullies among us to join up and attack. This can't be good for the cohesion or stability of society as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 08:03 AM

Anyway orwell was a professional writer with an eye on literary immortality - and as such a servant of the English language, and les mots juste and exact meanings.

For the rest of us language serves us. We are careful in our use of it not to hurt each other.

No doubt some of the people of Wigan were not delighted by his portrayal of them. No doubt all he said was true - but its not necessary for the generality of us to obsess about telling the truth, with no regard for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 07:52 AM

I suppose it is a bit like calling my wife an arthritic - it is offensive. We are so much more than our physical beings or medical conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 07:40 AM

The word "gay" is what Orwell referred to as "newspeak".....newspeak is a very dangerous practice, it disguises the real meaning of words.

It stops people thinking rationally.
I dont mind being called a heterosexual....that is what I am, a person who enjoys sex with women.
Why do you think your homosexual friend dislikes being referred to as such?.....I am uncomfortable referring to homosexual people I meet as "gay".....I feel it is rather patronising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 05:22 AM

I was asked not to use the term homosexual by a friend who was gay. So to respect his views, I use the word gay, and i feel a little uncomfortable using the term homosexual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 05:00 AM

Thanks Jeri.
I don't want a revival either.
That is why I asked why someone does keep reviving it.
Not intended as a personal swipe.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 03:05 AM

..and these facist pigs too!! You can tell they're bigots.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:50 AM

.....and have all the 'right' ...or 'left' thoughts, and attitudes........just so long as they don't relate on that spiritual experience!...Watch out! You might get smacked by a 'bigoted Christian'!...even worse, a Buddhist!
Damn Spiritual People!!....The ALL must be BIGOTS!!!....and especially those crazy ones who obey this 'whacked out' guy, who teaches that we should ALL love one another.....Those are the biggest bigots!!..I can tell!! You just got to hate them all! What do they know???
They must be Republicans....or even worse, Tea Partiers!!
You MUST hate them, because they are ALL bigots!!....I know, I asked every single one of them!!.......(Well not really, I didn't REALLY have the time, nor even a real interest)...sooo, I figured, you might as well hate them all!!!........Damn bigots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:39 AM

Smokey: "They can call me whatever they like as long as it's not early."

You must be bigoted to early risers!...(wink)!

GfS

P.S. I wonder if their getting the point, Smokey.....now only if they were the 'right' race....

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 02:23 AM

They can call me whatever they like as long as it's not early.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guset from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:25 AM

Then as MUSICIANS, we put a finger here, one there, and this one here, and these two there...hit the chord, and say, YUK !!..that sounded too black!!...or homosexual...or middle eastern...
I DON'T think s-o-o-o-o!!....Then, the other frustrated 'musicians' call you 'bigoted', because they SHOULD be practicing their craft, and just are too, occupied looking for people to call 'bigots'!

Meanwhile, their ax just sits there, waiting to vibrate WONDERFUL things into the air, and into existence, but has to wait till the 'musician' shuts the fuck up, and reaches into their hearts, the better part of their hearts, and manifest HARMONY.......but their too distracted from even remembering what that was!!!!

Then we have to hear(read) their crap!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:12 AM

Little wonder then, that society appears to be facked.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 01:02 AM

Meanwhile..back at the Washington Ranch, the manipulators LOVE it, because in the meantime, they're robbing us blind!...Then, they'll give Wall Street the A-O-K to do it, too....for a fee..and a law...and a new regulation...and a new tax, or surcharge....why not? None of them are bigoted against GREEN!!!....and YOU are NOT a race, creed or color, you are just a number. The race, creed or color animosity is just for the peons to occupy their time with, so they can think they are 'useful'!!...Send more money!...We'll even promise you a job!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:48 AM

..and, of course factions from both sides are indoctrinated to point the finger, at all the other factions from the other side, or even within your own party!!!...Its calisthenics, for 'bigot' name calling training!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:26 AM

Hee hee..

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:22 AM

Smokey: "Are they actual factual facts, or just alleged facts? Some facts are fictitious and some have fractured factuality. Look mother, I'm gibbering."

YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED THE ENGINE BEHIND POLITICAL 'FACTIONING' BY THE MANIPULATORS OF OUR SYSTEM!!

Kudos, Smokey!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:55 PM

Are they actual factual facts, or just alleged facts? Some facts are fictitious and some have fractured factuality. Look mother, I'm gibbering.

Surely bigotry is bigotry, regardless of who is right or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:30 PM

You have 'bigots' and people who draw conclusions based on FACTS, but are not bigoted, but who are called 'bigots'. So, the question is, "What do you call people who are 'bigoted' against people with FACTS? Are they 'bigots', or are the people just bigoted against bigots, bigots themselves??"

I think you might stop, and give it a rest, find out what the FACTS are, and form an opinion, based on those FACTS, about ANY given subject!!!

Besides, its a far more scientific approach! Hope that doesn't intrude on your bigotry against FACTS!!....(created by political idealism).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:12 PM

Keith posted the following:

Here you are, but it is a 2600 post thread!

thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2602&page=1&desc=yes

But took a personal swipe at someone.
Keith, this isn't going to go on like that thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:06 PM

I can't see any moral justification in attempting to stigmatise those we perceive to be wrong by means of name-calling, only personal satisfaction at expressing our imagined superiority. Calmly stated and well reasoned polite argument or counter-argument without insult or accusation, on the other hand, might just stand a chance of actually changing someone's opinion. Perhaps.

Name-calling belongs in the playground, not in reasonable debate or discussion if it is to be productive. We all know bigots exist, and that some people are bigoted about some things, but there is really no need to point at them and shout 'bigot' - that's no better than calling the fat kid 'fatty'. Real bigotry is self-advertising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:51 PM

So what's the current treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder?

In this case, posting a link to the thread and letting anyone who cares make up their own mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:14 PM

So what's the current treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:07 PM

"you said it so it's it's your statement and it's racist."

I did not say it.
I reported what others said because it was relevant.
I accepted their wisdom, but it was their opinion not mine.
I had not the knowledge to form such an opinion.

To say that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Safiq are guilty of racism against their own community is laughable, and you make yourself ridiculous.
They ascribed the over-representation of their people in this crime to the marriage customs of the people.
I have no reason to doubt what they say.
What reason do you have?
How can you be so certain that they are wrong that you call me bigot and racist for accepting their opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:06 PM

Ok, back to talking about bigotry in a more general way:
What is the best response when confronted with public bigotry, and why? Is there a response that works well for most situations, or is it a case-by-case answer? Does the attempt to stigmatize the speaker accomplish anything useful? Does ignoring the bigotry? Does an attempt to make the speaker change his mind ever work?

Personally, I have tried all these approaches. I'm currently on the stigmatize side of things, but I hate to go straight there if there is a chance that someone may change their attitude. On the other hand, I've tried to have conversations about this and all of them have always broken down as soon as I scratch the surface of the rationale for the beliefs. People just get angry and insulting when asked to support their statements. I don't feel very good about myself if I ignore public bigotry. Anyone have a winning approach?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:46 PM

Jim your case seems to be falling apart buddy, A lot of these guys you attack just expressed their opinions and they sure as hell haven't said half the things you claim they did.

Now the title of this thread could actually be considered offense. Fattism is discrimination on the basis of weight, it is prejudice against those considered to be overweight. The Occupational Therapist (OT) who treated my mom was a hell of a big lady.

To start a thread or participate in one about Big Occupational Therapists (BIGOTS) could offence some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:30 PM

Jim in one sentence you say -its about racism, not racists.
then in the next sentence you call them slimeballs. I think theres a slight inconsistency there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 03:01 PM

Oh, stuff it! Y'all are just a big old opportunistic thread infection. Go start another (crap) thread please!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 02:46 PM

Jim, I did say,
" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people"

I believed them Jim.
Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Jasmin Allibhai Brown and Mohammed Safiq.
That makes me a bigot?
They know more about the Pakistani community than I do, and maybe even more than you do. The first two represent Pakistani areas and the last three are part of the Pakistani community.

How do you know they are wrong Jim?
What superior knowledge tells you they are all wrong and all racist bigots?

They have spent their lives fighting racism and prejudice against Pakistanis Jim.

Their opinions were published in all the media, and not labelled "racist" except by you.
No other explanation was produced, but anyone who believes them is a bigot and a racist according to Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 01:26 PM

Keith
"May I remind you Jim that when I and MtheGm asked you for examples, you failed to find any!"
Not only did we not fail to find any but we put this up well over two dozen times as a direct quote from you - first you denied having written it, then you then admitted you wrote it, but said you couldn't take responsibility for it because it somebody else's opinion, finally you said that you couldn't take responsiblity for it because you had no knowledge of the subject.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
That is direct quote from you, nobody else, it is your statement it is a direct reference to the seduction of underage girls (paedophelia, and to suggest that "all male Pakistanis....." are potential paedophiles because of their culture is outrageously racist.
There is no need for me to put it up again - your past behaviour has returned to bite your bum!
I never mentioned your name, but it was courageous of you to join into confess past sins.
Now what lies would they be Ake?
You'll be telling us next you didn't claim that clerical sexual abuse was all down to those homosexuals in the church!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 01:22 PM

If there were a white person on Mudcat using the N word liberally and loudly complaining that it should be illegal for black people to marry white people, what would your reaction be? Would you speak out against the idea, or would you accuse anyone who called them on it of being a bigot?

What if this person claimed that his religion was being suppressed because allowing a black person marry a white person redefined his church's definition of marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:55 PM

I think what you are forgetting Ake is that when people come out of slavery, they come out with their heads held high and singing. They are a people that has come through.

And these are people not in held in slavery for a mere five hundred years but thousands of years.

My own father as a CID man used to have duties staking out toilets. he used to attend lectures by experts proving that anal sex will kill anyone who takes part in it. That was the orthodoxies of the time. And a bloody sad disgraceful time it was.

You must know same sex couples who live together in loving relationships. if you don't - you should -theres enough of them about nowadays. many Christian churches have gay groups within them.

The times they are a changing, and about bloody time!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:10 PM

just to clarify-
a homosexual has to indicate that he has not had anal/oral sex with another man for at least 6 months or a year[not sure which]under the new rules re giving blood.
seems to indicate the dangers of the "gay" lifestyle being recognized by govt, as also akeneton contends.
such recognition hardly makes either bigotted-certainly not cameron who seems pretty PC on "gay rights"

i think true bigotry is manifest by using verbal gutrot instead of reasoned argument and though a generalization, those lacking the latter often resort to the namecalling.
argument weak-shout like blazes!.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

Sorry to cross post Bruce, but I do understand your meaning
So good to see you!
Hi Sanity! keep fightin for the truth.....I love this place!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:51 AM

It doesn't bother me personally Al, but it sure bothers lots of Christians who have always believed that marriage, procreation and family structure were bound together and between man and woman.

The problem with redefining such matters is where do you stop? Before long the institution becomes worthless.

A couple of weeks ago, I read a "rights activist" comment that the issue was not about rights, as rights could be granted through civil union.

It was about the word. About being the same as everybody else, but they are not the same as everybody else, they are a sexual minority whose behaviour carries with it massive rates of a very serious, potentially fatal disease......I do not know why this is so, but until we do know, this type of sexual behaviour should not be promoted as "safe, healthy and normal"

Just to repeat from another thread, unaids latest figures for the UK show that male homosexuals account for 71% of new hiv infections.
CDC in the US state that 1 in 5 male homosexuals carry the hiv virus.
These figures are being concealed from the general public in the UK as all demographics are being lumped together showing that hiv rates are falling...whilst in reality, the infection rates amonst male homosexuals are rising rapidly.

If these rates were transferred to any other demographic, like white girls, drug users, or asian men there would be immediate demands for a medical inquiry, but rather than cast doubt on the all powerful "liberal equality agenda" we continue to allow young men to die in their thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master      that's all."
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

akenaton: "........They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots"....."

HELLO AKE!!!....Jeez, I was repeatedly called a 'bigot' just for saying, that homosexuality was NOT genetic, nor has any proof found that it was, and that it was behavioral! I'm sure you remember those legendary threads!! Still, to this day, which has now been over a year and a half, there still is no defining evidence that it has anything to do with genes!...but, at least a couple of my antagonists, on here has softened their points of contention..(also due to the fact that one of them has been shredded repeatedly on the subject....to which he still holds a grudge).

But it is nice to cross paths with you again!!

Warmest Regards.....you left wing-nut!..(wink!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:45 AM

Why does it bother you that Christyian homosexuals want to get married?

Be careful of crowning idiots. there are always new challengers for the throne.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:18 AM

akenaton, you are correct in what you say. The last two posts by Jim Carroll have been a bit off the wall. Keith A. seems to have put his case across well.

Maybe there should be a thread about trouble makers and liars. This guy Jim is simply flaming. He is trail blazing you guys.

Anyway, be care, It would appear he knows a few Irish travellers, hung like donkeys who like to lift shirttails.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:02 AM

Well of course Hitler maligned a whole group of people. People do. malign other groups.

I do think that one reason bigots get elected so often though is that they exploit reasonable fears that the population have, and fears that for which there are no simplistic answers, that the politicians can trot out as 'the answer'.

Case in point. Cameron today announces that he instituting a policy of 'zero tolerance' for schools that fail. Does any sane person think that Cameron cares more about this issue than teachers who have worked their entire lives in the deprived areas of our cities?

The answers why the schools are failing are many and varied and the reasons would not fit into a soundbyte. You can't help thinking perhaps he should have gone the whole hog and blamed it on the gypsies and homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

Our resident heterosexual, homosexual activist Mr John Peekstok,and to a lesser extent Jim, are both liars.
I am slightly bigotted against liars as they tend to kill reasonable discussion.
They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots".....this is simply a way of trashing our arguments on the issues involved. How can any sane person be "anti gay", or "anti Pakistani"?   the contention is laughable. My stance has always been against the promotion of homosexuality in society as being a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. This promotion is being carried out not by homosexuals, but by successive "liberal" governments aided by the media and people like Mr Peekstok who would like us to believe they speak for the majority of our society. They do not, but have succeeded in bullying and intimidating many into silence.....this is the action of Fascists.
I have spent a long time on this forum constructing an argument to support my case, complete with health statistics for hiv/aids amongst male homosexuals which are horrific and worsening year by year.
The crowning idiocy of the "liberal" homosexual agenda has been revealed in the UK this week, with the announcement that male homosexuals are no longer to be banned from contributing to national blood bank......on grounds of equality!
This on top of the decision to redefine Christian marriage to accomodate the same sexual minority.

It is surely a form of madness in this society of ours.
No wonder we see it crumbling around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:24 AM

" to slander a whole ethnic grouping,"

Who has ever done that Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

""There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...""

I'd say that's a distortion of what Jim said, Al, as he was quite specific in his references to those posters.

Would you say that anybody has the right openly to slander a whole ethnic grouping, sexual orientation, or other such entity, and not be called to account for it?

Nobody is suggesting that bigots be ignored or ostracised in all areas of communication, but surely attention must be drawn to the fact that the majority of the community finds their ideas and feelings on certain subjects to be inappropriate, unacceptable and offensive to put it mildly.

And Mudcat, like it or not, is such a community.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

Jim Carroll.
"or the earlier 'Muslim prejudice' threads - baoth contain racism and bigotry in the extreme"

May I remind you Jim that when I and MtheGm asked you for examples, you failed to find any!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:54 AM

Jim Carroll,
"Describing all male Pakistanis as "culturally inclined to paedophelia" is plain and simple racism."

No-one described them thus Jim.
I repeatedly corrected you about this.
There was no suggestion of paedophilia. Minors were said to be targeted for pimping because the were easier meat.
It was suggested that this demographic was over-represented in this abuse because of tensions related to unhappy arranged cousin marriages and absence of any courtship practices.
This suggestion came not from me, but from national figures with extensive knowledge and experience, who in most cases were well known anti-racists from within that community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:32 AM

So what are the implications of what you think Jim?

There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...

If the situaton is as you say, what do you suggest?