Survey Finds Quarter of World Holds Anti-Semitic Views

THE first-ever global study of anti-Semitic attitudes shows that more than a quarter of the world’s population harbors intense anti-Jewish sentiment, with region, more than religion, shaping people’s view of Jews and Judaism.

The poll by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, also finds that a large proportion of the world has never heard of the Holocaust or denies historical accounts of it.

Of those polled, 46 percent have either not heard of the Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews or think it is a myth or exaggerated.

“For the first time we have a real sense of how pervasive and persistent anti-Semitism is today around the world,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

He called the results of the Global 100 Index “sobering but not surprising”. The results of the survey of 102 nations and territories revealed stark regional differences, and hotspots of anti-Semitism around the globe.

The survey found that the least anti-Semitic place in the world is Laos, where anti-Semitic beliefs are held by just 0.2 percent of the population. The most anti-Semitic place is in Israel’s backyard, the West Bank and Gaza, where 93 percent of people held anti-Semitic beliefs.

The 10 most anti-Semitic countries and territories, according to the survey, are the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco.

The 10 least anti-Semitic countries, surveyors found, are Laos, the Philippines, Sweden, the Netherlands, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Tanzania and Thailand.

In the U.S., 9 percent of those surveyed revealed anti-Semitic views. And 14 per cent of Australians and 48 per cent of Indonesians.

The survey shows that Greece, at 69 percent, has the highest levels of anti-Semitic attitudes of any country outside the Middle East, a proportion far higher than the Western European average of 24 percent.

Of the 26 percent of people worldwide who harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, 70 percent said they had never met a Jewish person, the survey showed.


61 thoughts on “Survey Finds Quarter of World Holds Anti-Semitic Views

  1. I think we should clear up one thing first. Zionism is a party not a people. You can be anti Zionist without being anti-Semitic. Just as you can be anti Labour without being anti Australian. The Zionist just like to push the anti-Semitic agenda when they have no reply.

    Arabs are Semitic people (from Ash Sham region )so many Zionists (eg illegal settlers) are anti Semitic.


    • Good one Dom! I was just about to mention that Arabs are semitic people, does being anti-Arab mean being anti-Semitic? Can being anti-Islam be anti-Semitic as well (given that it originated in Arabia)?


    • Before you (Dom and davinci) start talking about the term anti-Semitic applying to Arab people, maybe you should look at the etymology of the term and the evolution of it’s common usage. Sort of like how being anti-gay doesn’t mean you are against happiness.


      • Stu, the hijacking of this term by the Zions is an issue in itself. If people speak against the Zion political system they are labelled Anti Semitic.

        Is this Rabbi anti Semitic ?


      • Dom, Dabs: the origins of the term anti-Semitic (as we use it today) originated in Germany in the mid 1800s as description of anti-Jewish racism, independent of any Zionist movement. Most people, including non-Zionist Jews and Israelis, have a common understanding of the term. Saying that Zionists have “hijacked” the term is an overreaction to a non-issue, akin to those who want to “reclaim” the word gay.


      • Stu is that Rabbi above anti semitic? If I said the same thing would I be anti semitic ?


    • And you’d think it’d be possible to also be (selectively) anti-jewish without being ‘anti-semitic’, wouldn’t you? Think again!

      However, that a particular group has managed to usurp the language to it’s own ends and ‘benefit’ does NOT negate the fact.
      In this case ~ according to the etymology pointed to by Stu ~ this perversion of the language is a fairly recent (and deliberately-engineered) development.
      eg. the Wikki entry points out that the Crusaders were never described as anti-semitic (nor were the Romans or the Egyptians, etc. ad infinitum, before them.
      Even the catholics weren’t ‘anti-semitic’ until somebody invented the term/application.

      Though, given Politically-Correct editorial bias applied stubbornly and consistently, ~ even if quite irrationally ~ etymologies can be corrupted and perverted to meanings quite different from the original.
      The process is usually called ‘Propaganda’, and ‘Social-Engineering’ and ‘Conditioning’, etc.
      Some institutions even use institutionalised “Re-Education” camps to speed the process.

      Yep! Bryan’s censored another of my posts based on FACT and asking incisive but perfectly reasonable questions.
      No doubt even Shakespeare would’ve been censored into oblivion on the same grounds.
      ……..and here I always thought ‘The Merchant of Venice’ was a brilliant (AND amusing!) exposition in the exploration of ‘Justice’, not some scurrilous antisemitic rant.

      Even Hamlet would’ve been banned,
      ……except that he changed his name to something deliberately UNsemitic.


      • All prejudice, including anti-Semitism, is evil. It is mental/emotional illness. It has a powerful origin in ignorance, and the prejudice lasts long beyond any chance to recognize that ignorance as its origin. Much of the environment in which we are raised is loaded with ignorance that results in the awful mental and emotional illnesses that are exhibited in prejudices of all kinds.


      • Well, Jack, your own ignorant prejudices certainly convince me that “mental and emotional illnesses of all kinds” are indeed a consequential risk.
        ….. and have also very precisely described any born-again evangelist.

        Noun: prejudice (pre-ju-dis)
        1. A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
        2. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand without good justification

        If the Censor wasn’t so prejudiced against fact, reality and objective inquisitiveness you’d be able to see for yourself that my banned post
        clearly avoided the two definitions cited. (Shorter Oxford)


      • Sure you are. The essence of ‘natural censorship’ (active or passive) is an integral element of the holding of any philosophical/religious view.

        (Abbot’s re-inforced support of the ” School Chaplaincy” ~ particularly the NON-support of secular ‘counsellors’ ~ is a case in point. A rock-worshipping Blackfella would never have done that.)

        As is the reality that you refuse to post perfectly legitimate comments on the basis that YOU “just don’t appreciate racial or religious stereotyping”.

        Since it’s your blog you’re entirely entitled to impose your ‘appreciations’, but that doesn’t abnegate their censorial dictate one whit.

        And while ‘racial or religious’ stereotyping may be ruled ‘unacceptable’ or politically-incorrect it’s a perfectly legitimate vehicle in most circumstances:-
        no chinese catholics are irish protestants.
        ….and in fact it’s entirely legitimate to actually “racially and religiously” ‘discriminate’ on those terms:- Female chinese methodists are NOT permitted to claim the same religio-racial-sexual status as male african giraffe-worshippers.

        ANY descriptive, natural or invented, depends on stereotyping:-
        Leopards stereotypically have spots.
        Green vegetables are good for you.
        Unlikable people are disliked.

        YOU raised the issue:- A quarter of the world dislikes jews/judaism:- are …. …, ‘stereotypically’ ‘anti-semite’.

        I merely suggested the figures might not be accurate ~ given the restricted scope of the survey cited, and
        Questioned whether such a large number of people holding the same opinion could all be wrong; ie not have grounds for their opinion, and

        Drew a (opinionated) comparison between that stereotypical (IN THEIR OWN ESTIMATION) group and another group which you yourself have never had any problem in stereotyping.

        You (stereotypical) voters recently elected TWO (stereotypical) elitist far-right-wing governments on exactly that (comparative) basis.
        I, for one, don’t “appreciate” THAT.
        …..but my lack of “appreciation” doesn’t abrogate your right to express your opinion, regardless of whether you voted for stereotypically left-wing or stereotypically right-wing stereotypical politicians.


      • Of course I can; and DO! Consistently.
        The only difference here is that YOU’RE not particularly ~ and irrationally ~ defensive on the behalf of censors. ……. as you are( based purely on your own religious and racist views) in the defense of jews/judaism.
        (Though given your censorial proclivities the accusation of personal-interest-bias could be levelled)

        THAT’S ‘bigotry’. If “Unlikable people are disliked.” is not vilificatory, how about ‘Unlikable censors are disliked’? No?
        By what process, then does ‘Unlikable jews are disliked’ become an ‘antisemite’ vilification’ ?

        Once again I challenge you to demonstrate how anything in my banned post may be called bigotry ~ let alone vilification.
        Those terms cannot apply to facts or reasonable opinion ~ both of which are the benchmarks for various rules.
        ….and my commentaries.

        While you’re soul-searching perhaps you’ll reveal to your devoted bloggists your views on whether Shakespeare ought to be censored on the undeniably obvious grounds of religious and racial ‘stereotyping’ and/or ‘vilification’ of jews.

        I really would like your ruling on the matter.


      • Yep. —> “We’ve been over this before.”
        And as has been established:- I’ve read the legislation, and in no way break the law.
        I “vilify” no-one.
        But how DO you think ‘the laws’ would view Merchant of Venice ??
        ….and why hasn’t every copy of it been burnt in the streets ~ in the image of:-


      • Whether or not you believe you break the law is irrelevant if the law is broken. And if you think not publishing bigoted statements about Jews is akin to Nazi book burning you are deluded. I’m sure you really know that Dabs.


      • That hare won’t run. I KNOW I’m not vilifying anyone. ‘
        Nor am I a bigot ! I’m aware of the facts and have reached a reasonable conclusion.
        ….and am open to being persuaded to a different view (without rewriting facts and histories.)

        Are YOU equally open to having your views corrected?

        Moreover the similarity between ANY sort of censorship and nazi book-burning is absolute and obvious. Book-burning is WRONG, EVEN IF THE BOOKS EXPRESS BIGOTED VIEWS.

        Incidentally, I’ve just learnt that John O’Grady is being tried for vilifying ………. Ockers.
        ….and Ted Bullpit’s wog son-in-law is being investigated too. 😉


      • What you think you know and the truth are not necessarily the same thing mate. I’m not book burning; just disallowing bigotry. I don’t think you’re a bigot but some things you post are bigoted…even if you don’t care to face it. Any sort of censorship is wrong? Well, yeah it’s fine to have that principle but what about child porn? Do you think that should be allowed? Probably not.


      • I’ve no need to defend myself against charges of bigotry, but merely point out that that even bigots have as much ‘right’
        to be heard as does anyone else.

        Debating ‘truth’ is not the issue. The issues are matters of ‘fact’ and ~ since you insist on raising the question ~ ‘law’.
        Your confusion in that regard reaches all the way to comments like:-

        ” Any sort of censorship is wrong? Well, yeah it’s fine to have that principle but what about child porn?”

        Again: “Wrong” has nothing to do with “Law”. Child pornography should be banished NOT as a matter of widely-variable ‘right and wrong’, but as a matter of law. That’s to say:- One rule applied equally to everybody in all cases. (well…in theory, anyway.)
        (and if I had my bigoted way those involved would be exterminated on sight…..though I know YOU don’t agree! 😉 )
        Being bigoted is NOT against the law; ie. it’s legally permitted, and whether a view is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is entirely a matter of philosophy and social acceptance. (often shaped by propaganda, etc….or even bombs.)

        I could cite endless arguments in support, but the end of the argument is the ‘fact’ that while book-burning may be perfectly lawful ~ even legally required ~ that DOESN’T make it ‘right’. Ever.


      • As has been pointed out several times, you are NOT a lawyer and you obviously don’t really understand the law. Vilification IS against the law. Sure bigots can express themselves, and there are plenty of forums available to them to spread their bile…But not here please mate.


      • Amendments to sections of the country’s Racial Discrimination Act 1975 that deal with racial hate speech.

        The relevant provisions of the Act make it unlawful for a person to ‘do an act’, otherwise than in private, if:

        (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

        (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

        With rights come responsibilities that all of us must be held to, including paying our taxes and respecting the rights of others. Having the right to be a bigot is not a right to act like a selfish self-centred prig. Even the loudmouth bigot has the responsibility in a civil society to respect others. But they seldom do. .The rest if us have the right to denounce what we find is bigotry,


      • As I understand it, Dabs, there is a difference between private and public property. It would not be reasonable to prohibit freedom of speech on public property unless it was breaking the law or creating a nuisance.

        On private property the owner has more rights to monitor the behaviour or even the presence of others. I am very glad that your presence here Dabs is not only unprohibited but seems quite welcome. Still it is the owner’s perogative to monitor, especially with regard to the presence of other guests. No justification is necessary, I think?


      • The message seems to be that racism and bigotry is fine as long as it is in the guise of public discussion. What rubbish!! Racist thoughts and actions say far more about the person they come from than the person they are directed at. Haters and bullies are always cowards, you know. They often hide and hate behind anonymity.


      • I agree with you Strewth. This forum should not be held to ransom by bullies. Let’s not give a soapbox to bigotry. I hope that in the future, displays of intolerance will be disregarded as nothing more than small minds spouting off about things of which they do not understand.


      • And that bald assertion:- “Whether or not you believe you break the law is irrelevant if the law is broken.”
        … absolutely incorrect as well.
        Mens rea, in some variation or other (quite apart from from other various cases of incompetence: mental insufficiency, age, etc.) can play a mitigating/exonerating role in many legal cases, up to and including murder..


      • Quite agree, Strewth, and said so right from the jump:- “Still it is the owner’s prerogative to monitor, especially with regard to the presence of other guests. No justification is necessary, I think?”

        But that prerogative can’t legitimately be laid off on other agencies like ‘the law’, etc.
        By all means censor anything on your own site ~ but honesty demands you own the decision and hoist your own flag. (and, ideally, be prepared to justify it.)

        We still haven’t heard whether “the owner” would censor The Merchant of Venice. (which might, in this day and age, breach ‘the law’.
        …..or is it a case of?:-

        Wot’s jist plain stoush wiv us, right ‘ere to-day,
        Is “valler” if yer fur enough away.
        Some time, some writer bloke will do the trick
        Wiv Ginger Mick,
        Of Spadger’s Lane.
        ‘E’ll be a Romeo,
        When ‘e’s bin dead five ‘undred years or so.


      • I do own the decision not to allow bigotry or vilification. I’ve said that many times. What could be plainer?
        The merchant of venice argument is a red herring. I’m not in the position to ban or censor it.


      • Once again I’ve lost a well-structured ‘essay’ to cyberspace and don’t have the time or inclination to redo it. Even had a couple of pointedly succinct links from google ~ and can’t find them again, among over 13 million similar references.
        Some bullet-points:-
        1…….Agreed I’m not a lawyer
        2…….Neither are you.
        3…… I’ll give you odds that my ability to read and “understand” legalese is at least as good as yours. (and I know enough to stick to one issue at a time; you can’t seem to make up your mind whether you’re objecting to vilification, discrimination or bigotry. I’ve been dealing with legal matters for
        decades ~ often successfully. The current trend to airy-fairy New-Age agenda-driven ‘offences’ should be declared criminal ~ but I’m
        dealing with some of those currently too. And will win.
        Just recently I scored a couple of legal points neither the Magistrate nor the police prosecutor were familiar with, but had to concede.
        4……I remind you that the last time you raised this subject you used the same argument and cited a ‘real lawyer’ ~ who had no relevant
        response when I challenged his ‘opinion’ with the letter of the law.
        5……I’ll also give you odds that the overheated commentators who attack me below have no familiarity of the various Acts beyond the googled headlines
        and other cliches
        Like the one who urges us, in effect, not to ‘tolerate intolerance’.
        6……Anti-vilification and anti-discrimination laws comprise two distinct bodies of legislation.
        7……In any case the law relates NOT to discrimination/vilfication per se, but to whether individuals or groups of individuals are offended/insulted.
        ie. it’s not possible to discriminate against/vilify entire races.
        8……Most cases of anti-discrimination/vilification cases are thrown out or abandoned due to lack of substance.
        9……There is nothing ‘bilious’ about any of the comments in the banned post. YOU raised the subject about the number of people who ‘held antisemitic
        views’ and I did nothing more than question your numbers and assumed conclusions. I expressed no personal views outside of those parameters.
        10. These absurd leftie/feminist-political laws are about to have some teeth removed by our attorney-general ~ who recently declared that there’s no
        law against bigotry.
        11…..In any case, I point out yet again that judaism has been consistently and vigorously built ( and continues to be built) upon racist and religious
        discrimination ~ and has done fair job of racial vilification too (if their biblical history is accurate.). Sauce for the goose…..?


      • You and I both know that your insistence on being your own lawyer has not ended well in the past. Your arguments are in no way convincing. You can babble on forever about this but in the end it comes down to this. I – and the law – will not allow bigoted statements or vilification on this blog.


      • I think it is rather common for bigots to hide behind anonymity. They feel they don’t face the consequences of the law when using made up names. It is rampant on the Net.


      • No ducking and weaving lad; not needed. (“Ducking and weaving Dabs. Love the little sidestep about child porn.”) You dug your pitfall in the wrong place. 😉


      • Now THAT’S a tap-dancing side-step> “The merchant of venice argument is a red herring. I’m not in the position to ban or censor it.”

        The question wasn’t ‘WILL you?’, but ‘WOULD you?’
        ….a question to determine a principle.


      • Hmm… “I think it is rather common for bigots to hide behind anonymity. ”
        D’you mean like “John R”, John R?

        I’M not hiding behind anything: most of the regulars here know who I am, (some of the more attractive ones even have photos of me!) where I live, my phone number and email addresses. Some of them have met me in person.
        (and haven’t read the books I’ve lent them!)

        How about you?
        If you want to get into a pissing-contest flop out your…er, ‘credentials’.


      • I – and the law – will not allow bigoted statements or vilification on this blog.

        Fine. Your blog is your business: even when it’s shonky; but don’t cloak it with the (supposed) respectability of ‘The Law’.
        As stated (without admissions), the Attorney General, backed up by the Prime Minister, YOU helped elect recently declared that bigotry is NOT unlawful.
        And I insist my comments did NOT constitute ‘vilification’ ~ either in terms of the law or in any other way ~ and challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

        File a lawsuit if you like.


      • Your blog is your business

        That’s right

        And I insist my comments did NOT constitute ‘vilification’

        That’s not your call. It’s mine.

        and challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

        And repeat your vilification? No I think not.


      • And Derek, (“The message seems to be that racism and bigotry is fine as long as it is in the guise of public discussion. What rubbish!!”)

        Why don’t you try actually READING THE LAW instead of burbling bullshit?

        Moreover, stop passing judgment about comments you haven’t even read, courtesy of the censor. There’s no need to try harder to convince anybody of your ignorance.


      • Hoist on your own petard! You DO have trouble ‘understanding’ legal points/qualifications.
        (“What? Are you pleading that the statements you try to post are the result of incompetence: mental insufficiency, age, etc?”)
        Would you like me to reduce the comment to more-colloquial words of two syllables for you? 🙂


      • “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
        ― Thomas Paine


      • Some things are not “what they seem”.

        I’m a great fan of Paine’s, and have often cited him on this very blog ~ even to the extent of being howled down by godbotherers insisting that “the authority of reason” is overruled by the authority of ‘Divine Inspiration’.

        Rather than dishonour the standing of the great man by selectively and falsely quoting him out of context you should provide a link to what he said ~ AND in what circumstances. (Have YOU in fact read the whole thing ~ or are you just cherry picking quotes from google?)

        You’d realise that ~ loosely transposed ~ the speech from which the quote is extracted might strike an uncanny similarity to some of my posts re. judaism/jews. —>

        “Mankind are not universally agreed in their determination of right and wrong; but there are certain actions which the consent of all nations and individuals has branded with the unchangeable name of meanness. In the list of human vices we find some of such a refined constitution, they cannot be carried into practice without seducing some virtue to their assistance; but meanness has neither alliance nor apology. It is generated in the dust and sweepings of other vices, and is of such a hateful figure that all the rest conspire to disown it. Sir William, the commissioner of George the Third, has at last vouchsafed to give it rank and pedigree. He has placed the fugitive at the council board, and dubbed it companion of the order of knighthood.”

        As he says:- “Judas is as much known as John, yet history ascribes their fame to very different actions.”
        ….and might’ve added:- It’s the effectiveness of the propaganda that makes the difference.


    • “Stu is that Rabbi above anti-Semitic?” I watched about half of it, and no he wasn’t based on what I heard. Any reasonable person can distinguish between Zionism and anti-Semitism. If you feel like someone is conflating the two terms to shut down debate, call them out on it.


  2. also finds that a large proportion of the world has never heard of the Holocaust .
    We should keep that in mind when delivering aid to the starving.
    May I suggest a flier with pictures and writing in their language to educate them of the poor suffering of just the jews .
    Leaving out the fact other people died [about 50,000,000] and WW2 was not about the jews.


  3. A lesson in the perversion of language to the advantage of the pervert. (perverter?)

    What is the origin of Shoah? The word שואה meaning “catastrophe, devastation” derives from the root שאה. According to Klein, this root originally meant “to make a din or crash”, then “crash into ruins”, and then “to ruin, lay waste”. The original sense of making noise can be found in the related word teshua תשואה – “noise, tumult”, which doesn’t have a negative connotation at all (see Zecharia 4:7).


  4. Found one:- (the quotes are comments of the Fed. Court,) Note particularly the first line, and also (c) (ii)

    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

    (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

    (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

    (c) in making or publishing:

    (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

    (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

    As noted above, Mr Bolt failed because what he wrote was not done “reasonably and in good faith”.

    Case law further clarifies the circumstances in which a person will be held to have acted unlawfully. The test consistently applied by the courts, as laid down by Justice Kiefel in Creek v Cairns Post, requires that the speech have “profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights.” It is important to note also that the legislation does not make hate speech a crime (no one can be locked-up as a result of the Act and there is no police involvement). Instead, there are civil remedies for parties who wish to pursue them, for example damages (money) and injunctions (to restrain someone from republishing a racist article, for instance).

    Is the law nonetheless too broad?

    On balance, yes. The provision is too broad because it is unlawful to “offend” or “insult”, and this is measured by reference to the reaction of the particular group “offended” or “insulted”, not by reference to larger community standards of decency.


  5. Black-banned again?
    Make a ‘clever’ comment and shut down replies?
    Has a familiar ring to it; electronic bookburning?


    • Paranoia at work? No comment would appear on the page for over an hour, and then they all appeared together. Also tried to cancel the above comment but it loaded anyway.
      God trying to tell me something?


  6. Another:- (on a State level)

    as Lazarus Long was noted for saying:-

    “What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”–what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! “


      • I really think it’s time to drop this:- for one thing I don’t have the time. But briefly:-

        1…..I did as suggested and re-read my post and feel able to say I can reasonably (ie without prejudice/objectively) justify/prove EVERY comment.
        eg. compare, say, your own figure for the Greeks’ attitude to jews with
        their attitude to the comparative I used. (and don’t even bother looking at similar Balkan/Slavic comparisons!)

        2…..Also certain none of what I said breaches any of the ‘laws’ ~whilst still asserting that such New-Age non-specific PC ‘laws’ have no legitimacy as
        as ‘legal’ let alone ‘social-value’ rules. But I can see how some might object to them.

        3….. “And I insist my comments did NOT constitute ‘vilification’” –> “That’s not your call. It’s mine.”
        Not quite. It’s the call of the ‘laws’ you refer to.

        4…… “File a lawsuit if you like.” —> “Don’t be silly Dabs.”
        Actually it was a serious invitation to settle a serious dispute. Since I’m sure of my stance, and you are of yours, then the matter can be finally settled by an official adjudicator. Hint:- You could ask LAV to take it up and see if they’re willing to do so or not.
        Might even set a precedent ~ if only briefly, since the AT and PM are determined to gut the Act on the grounds of its all-enveloping impreciseness and unfairness.

        5…… I never thought you’d ban Shakespeare, but wanted to make a point. For interest’s sake, if you’re willing, I’d like to hear your reasons, vis-a-vis this issue.

        6……. My efforts at being my own lawyer are probably as good as those of many professionals who aren’t as personally- interested in my issues.
        I’ve won more than I’ve lost and, importantly, the more serious ones. (Most of my convictions were logged when I was very young ~ including in the Children’s Court ~ and was more interested in bragging than defending. )
        Besides that, it doesn’t come easily to a ‘victim’ of the law to learn that the law can also be used to prevent such victimisation.
        (It was only recently that it occurred to me that citizens can actually ~ and fairly simply ~ file criminal charges against police.
        And that some of said charges can also be liable to a civil lawsuit ~ damages and all that ~ against both individual coppers AND the
        Corporation that employs them; ie the Chief Commissioner as representative of the police force. I’ve actually come across a lawyer who’s done it all before, and is doing the paperwork free of charge on the basis of claiming costs. Watch this space.

        7…….. “Carmel” ought to get hold of a few facts and some concoction which prevents hysterical ‘vapours’ .
        8 …..fini


      • Well yes it is time to for you to “drop it”. There are more important things in life for you to get hysterical about. I think I’ve made my points clear enough and there’s no point in repeating them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s