Tuesday, February 17, 2015

John Birmingham claims racism in reaction to Bali Nine duo

Whenever lefties really don't like something they are fond of explaining it away with a false accusation of some sort of bigotry, usually racism. This is because they themselves are fixated on race to an unhealthy degree. Being so emotionally retarded, they are incapable of seeing others as individuals first and foremost, so they must think everyone else has the same primitive world view.

A perfect example of this simplistic analysis is John Birmingham's take on the reasons Australians generally aren't outraged that Chan and Sukumaran are gonna be shot for their crimes. With no evidence whatsoever he concludes it's because they're not white. So "we" don't give a rat's about their fate.

Apart from it being such a lazy little gargle, his own rather alarming prejudice comes through quite clearly. I mean, who is he actually referring to when he says "we"?

Well, he clarifies this to some degree:

And that bullet's coming, partly because 'we' just don't care.

I use the air quotes because some do. But as a whole, as a clan, we do not. 

Hmm. Let's just unpack that a little more to see what else he means: He's not including those who themselves aren't white, surely. They couldn't possibly be racist -- least of all against other non-whites.

So by "we" he means white people. He also means Aussies generally (clan, whole). So he's relegating non-whites to a category of, er, non-Australian-ness, isn't he?

Hate to burst Birmo's bolshie little bubble. But Australia is actually a multi-racial nation. And many of those he condemns for not kowtowing to his hand-wringing line on capital punishment are from races other than caucasian.

And the reason they have their view is not because they don't care about Chan and Sukumaran. It's because they loathe the drug trade and believe in a sovereign nation's right to make and enact its own laws. They also know that these drug smugglers knew exactly what they were getting into when they set out to break those laws. It gives them no pleasure that two young lives will be ended in this way. They just figure, well, what did these idiots expect?

Aside from the obvious puerility of Birmingham's race-based analysis, there's clear evidence to refute his claim: Barlow and Chambers, who were white as white can be, were also executed for drug trafficking (by Malaysia in this case).

Back then, just as today, there were those in Australia who were appalled by this punishment and campaigned against it, and those who accepted it without complaint. I recall no massive public outcry against their execution. And this was at a time when our population was much "whiter" than it is now. If the "Blunt Instrument" was accurate the whole nation would have been up in arms about their fate. But that certainly wasn't the case.

If Birmingham is not convinced perhaps he'd like to test the issue in the manner suggested below:

No comments:

Post a Comment