Swastika on bonnet = trouble - Page 2

Steve · 09-09-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbearz

To put the record straight for once and for all......from wikipedia

Quote

"The swastika (from Sanskrit स्वस्तिक svastika, from su "well", and asti "being", thus "good fortune" or "well-being") is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles in either left-facing (卍) or right-facing (卐) direction. The swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Jainism. The Hindu version is often decorated with a dot in each quadrant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

There is a pic there, so if you want to check if that was the one you saw or not. If it wasnt then the person is a bloody nazi hilarious too seeing he is driving a japanese car...

It was pointing in the same direction as the one in the top right of that page so it could've been either a Hindu symbol or a Nazi symbol. I'm familiar with what the Nazi symbol looks like so there was no mistaking it. What I'm not sure of is the driver's intentions. Either way, he either needs a huge **** kicking or he's just plain ignorant OR he knows what it symbolises and just doesn't care that his religious symbol can really bring out such feelings in people. I think the last scenario is just as bad as the first.

Ohio XB · 09-09-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monty

Neither is paying out on other peoples beliefs. These people do exist, get over it. Each to there own mate.

Muslim extremists also exist and want anyone that is not Muslin dead. Should we that are not Muslim just get over that too?

I am putting up only links to these pictures so as not to post the pictures on the forum.

Buddhist version

Nazi version

Buddhists wouldn't put the symbol on their hood either. It's not a thought that would occur.

Steve

Keepleft · 09-09-2006, 01:36 PM

Twas also an ancient catholic symbol, this is perhaps for Mythbuster.

HLC · 09-09-2006, 02:43 PM

forgetting all the connotations etc, the Swastika is a GOOD looking symbol.

it looks great IMO.

BUT, it represented German facism, white power etc etc.

Being half german, im not exactly proud of whate germany did in the war, and it is a shame that the symbol became so evil. whatever...

i think there are much worse things than having someone display a swastika on their car.

Burning the Australian flag for example?

also one more thing. the swastika, before rotated, also represented the 4 L's. luck, love, light and life.

The Monty · 09-09-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Muslim extremists also exist and want anyone that is not Muslin dead. Should we that are not Muslim just get over that too?
Steve

Point taken, but Ill still stand by what I said. I just dont see what the big deal is. Its only a Swastika. I think all leaders of all wars are as bad as each other. we should not just pick out one to hate them. Yes it represents hate, but we dont stop using the American flag because they nuked Japan, and Im pretty sure the effect was about the same, except Japan are still having after effects now. what happens in war stays in war. But I do understand where you are coming from, and I dont want this to turn into an argument. The question was, are they asking for trouble, and I think whoevers car it was, Yes they are asking for trouble.
Josh

:

GlennBA · 09-09-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monty

Point taken, but Ill still stand by what I said. I just dont see what the big deal is.

If you were jewish you would

WOLF · 09-09-2006, 04:45 PM

censorship is a dangerous thing.... Hitler was accused of it in WWII, yet these days how are our governments any different? It's ironic that the German Government is the most hypocritical of them all!! They do everything in their power to supress everything from freedom of speech to a flag an individual wants to bare...Hell its illegal to even fly the German flag above your home over there.
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being proud to be "proud" and if I want to wear the southern cross on my clothes or car or whatever and someone else wants to wear the swastika on his car...so be it mate

Outbackjack · 09-09-2006, 04:53 PM

Different symbols mean different things to different people. We all despise what the swastika has come to "symbolise". Yet if you were to travel to the occupied territories (ie palestine) you find that the star of david has a similar meaning to them. Ironic really.

mcflux · 09-09-2006, 06:07 PM

Charles Manson starred in Pimp My Ride?

Steve · 09-09-2006, 09:24 PM

There are some interesting points raised here. At what point does freedom of speech end and sensorship start? There are plenty of symbols out there that are worn or displayed either as a statement of pride through to an "up yours" type of gesture. Do we allow a total "free for all" or do we follow the Victorian Govt's lead and take political correctness to the extreme. Social engineering is a dangerous thing.

Personally I believe in freedom of speech but that there is a kind of cosmic karmic force. I believe the saying "what goes around, comes around" is true. This guy is asking for trouble and it'll come to him in some form or another. I don't want to be told I can't display something but neither would I do so if I knew it was THAT offensive.

As the big man once said: "Why are people so unkind?"

NAK302 · 10-09-2006, 10:11 AM

i think one of the major issues world wide is trying not to offend some group or race. while we have different races, religions, political beliefs there will always be someone somewhere offended by some words or antics by another.

whoever it is that has that symbol on their bonnet is making a statement. unfortunetly that person is offending others.
i get offended everyday by the antics or words of a lot of people but i get over it.

Smoked · 10-09-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbearz

To put the record straight for once and for all......from wikipedia

Eeew, Ive seen that been the death of people with Wikipedia quite often being wrong becasue of mis-information.

Ohio XB · 10-09-2006, 02:31 PM

The Monty, I don't want to get involved in any arguments either.

Anything taken to it's extreme can be a bad thing. Here in the States there is a huge movement to be careful to not offend anyone. Sorry, there are some people that will be offended at something and that is ok because they are wrong on that point to begin with (no reference or relavence to you). It is to the point where some simple things are no longer permitted in the work place.

What do I mean by some people being wrong? In this day offending someone has got so bad a man can be fired for smiling and saying "hello" to a woman if she feels you had "alternative motives" for doing so. How pathetic is that? The paranoia on the part of this woman should not be considered an offensive act performed by the cordial man.

Many people will bring up the issue between free speech and censorship as if there is nothing else. There is something else, and as with any freedom comes responsibility. There is a law in the US that says you cannot yell "Fire!" in a public place unless there is a fire. Otherwise this encites panic and can cause injury or death. Is this censorship? No, just being responsible.

If someone wants to paint a swastika on their hood and then try to charge the people that beats them up with assault, I say forget it. As the law says, any reasonable person would expect such an act to encite others to violence. It is being irresponsible.

Steve

Casper · 10-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

The Monty, I don't want to get involved in any arguments either.

Anything taken to it's extreme can be a bad thing. Here in the States there is a huge movement to be careful to not offend anyone. Sorry, there are some people that will be offended at something and that is ok because they are wrong on that point to begin with (no reference or relavence to you). It is to the point where some simple things are no longer permitted in the work place.

What do I mean by some people being wrong? In this day offending someone has got so bad a man can be fired for smiling and saying "hello" to a woman if she feels you had "alternative motives" for doing so. How pathetic is that? The paranoia on the part of this woman should not be considered an offensive act performed by the cordial man.

Many people will bring up the issue between free speech and censorship as if there is nothing else. There is something else, and as with any freedom comes responsibility. There is a law in the US that says you cannot yell "Fire!" in a public place unless there is a fire. Otherwise this encites panic and can cause injury or death. Is this censorship? No, just being responsible.

If someone wants to paint a swastika on their hood and then try to charge the people that beats them up with assault, I say forget it. As the law says, any reasonable person would expect such an act to encite others to violence. It is being irresponsible.

Steve

Well said and 100% correct.
.
Personally I think the "you have the right to pursue happiness" clause to be THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in your constitution. Many do not understand it here but that right comes with responsibilities as you say. You have the right.. but not at the cost of others losing theirs. So yes, the person certainly has the right to have that icon on their car.. but not at the cost of causing others grief and despair etc for doing so.

Steffo · 10-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbearz

If it wasnt then the person is a bloody nazi hilarious too seeing he is driving a japanese car...

They were allies in WW2.

The Monty · 10-09-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

The Monty, I don't want to get involved in any arguments either.

Anything taken to it's extreme can be a bad thing. Here in the States there is a huge movement to be careful to not offend anyone. Sorry, there are some people that will be offended at something and that is ok because they are wrong on that point to begin with (no reference or relavence to you). It is to the point where some simple things are no longer permitted in the work place.

What do I mean by some people being wrong? In this day offending someone has got so bad a man can be fired for smiling and saying "hello" to a woman if she feels you had "alternative motives" for doing so. How pathetic is that? The paranoia on the part of this woman should not be considered an offensive act performed by the cordial man.

Many people will bring up the issue between free speech and censorship as if there is nothing else. There is something else, and as with any freedom comes responsibility. There is a law in the US that says you cannot yell "Fire!" in a public place unless there is a fire. Otherwise this encites panic and can cause injury or death. Is this censorship? No, just being responsible.

If someone wants to paint a swastika on their hood and then try to charge the people that beats them up with assault, I say forget it. As the law says, any reasonable person would expect such an act to encite others to violence. It is being irresponsible.

Steve

100% agreed.

nugget378 · 10-09-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Well said and 100% correct.
.
Personally I think the "you have the right to pursue happiness" clause to be THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in your constitution. Many do not understand it here but that right comes with responsibilities as you say. You have the right.. but not at the cost of others losing theirs. So yes, the person certainly has the right to have that icon on their car.. but not at the cost of causing others grief and despair etc for doing so.

So if I find a crucifix offensive? churches should take it down?
If I find the saucer that followers of some religions wear on there heads offensive they should take them off?
The swastika has meaning in other cultures,that relates not one bit to nazism.
those that want to display it should be able to do so,with out fear of being assaulted or they're property damaged.
Those that call for tolerance should also practise it...

Casper · 10-09-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget378

So if I find a crucifix offensive? churches should take it down?
If I find the saucer that followers of some religions wear on there heads offensive they should take them off?
The swastika has meaning in other cultures,that relates not one bit to nazism.
those that want to display it should be able to do so, with out fear of being assaulted or they're property damaged.
Those that call for tolerance should also practise it...

The person has the right to have it on their car as I said. Where that right finishes is if that person then participates in acts that then subjicate others. They must also be aware that, by having such an inflammatory symbol that others may choose to not support their decision to have it. Should they be assaulted or their property damaged? No, not at all. Should they expect or demand that people accept their decision and go looking for some sort of discrimination case? No. The image is, in its very nature, one of the most inflammatory and sensitive images of the 20th century.
Having it on their car is paramount to someone having "I'm a pedophile and I like your children" written on their car. Is it illegal? No. Is it justification for assault or damage? No. Do people have to accept it and treat this individual with anything other than disdain and contempt.. NO.
Now it just may be that the word "pedophile" may mean "carer of children" in some foreign country and is not how we understand it.. but in this western society there are certian things that people who live here should be aware of (or be made aware of) so that misunderstandings and untrue judgements do not happen. Its called common sense.

NAK302 · 11-09-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

but in this western society there are certian things that people who live here should be aware of (or be made aware of) so that misunderstandings and untrue judgements do not happen. Its called common sense.

this bit i don't understand. are you saying the western world should be made aware or the immigrants who want to live in western world but still practice their own cultures?

Casper · 11-09-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT-0733

this bit i don't understand. are you saying the western world should be made aware or the immigrants who want to live in western world but still practice their own cultures?

I am saying that when people come to Australia they may not be aware of certain (generally socially unacceptable) practices so they don't inadvertently step into trouble.
Such practices that are actually quite common in some countries are not considered acceptable over here (example: It is actually quite acceptable to spit in public in Spain.. over here that is considered unacceptable).
It is not the immigrants fault that they are not aware however people should try to make an effort to let them know (nicely). If, after that, they choose to continue with it well aware of its unsociable nature... well I guess they are taking the risk of some sort of unpleasantness or argument happening (how would you react is someone spat on your car?).

XRQTOR · 11-09-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Having it on their car is paramount to someone having "I'm a pedophile and I like your children" written on their car. Is it illegal? No. Is it justification for assault or damage? No. Do people have to accept it and treat this individual with anything other than disdain and contempt.. NO.

But it's funny how so many people turn a blind eye if something happens to one of these people isn't it, even in prison pedophile's and rapists arn't protected from the majority of inmates once they find out what they are in for.

I'm guessing your a parent, if a guy with that pasted all over his car was attempting to talk to your kids what would you do.

herogoose · 11-09-2006, 09:01 PM

i would set the dogs on him

Casper · 11-09-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTOR

I'm guessing your a parent, if a guy with that pasted all over his car was attempting to talk to your kids what would you do.

That was be going past "the right to persue happiness" and into "participates in acts that then subjicate others". At that point I would persue my right to defend myself and my family.. he would persue his right to claim ambulance and medical benifits cover.. once they removed the tire iron from his head of course

:

XRQTOR · 11-09-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

That was be going past "the right to persue happiness" and into "participates in acts that then subjicate others". At that point I would persue my right to defend myself and my family.. he would persue his right to claim ambulance and medical benifits cover.. once they removed the tire iron from his head of course

:

Only one way to deal with rock spider's and rapists mate and that's to make sure they physically arn't capable of doing it again or watch them take their last breath.

Ohio XB · 12-09-2006, 02:02 PM

Nugget378, interesting point. Here is the response to that.

I don't know how it is in Australia but in courts here in the US the phrase "...any reasonable person..." would seem to be legal terminology for "common sense." Is there a known significant populace of people that are literally offended by the cross and with proper reason such as historical events of the use of that symbol to cause offense or repression, and I mean by the use of the symbol such as the use of the swastika in it's configuration during WW II? Is this notion widely known? If not then this accusation, that one is offended by the cross, needs some sort of proof that harm has been done. Yes, this is just an anology.

If the person that owned the car had the swastika on the bonnet in a configuration other than the Nazi orientation of the symbol then that person can claim other meaning. If it is in the Nazi orientation then they cannot plead ignorance to enciting a riot.

As far as "other meaning" goes, with my familiarity with Zen and Buddhism, it is commonly known that people following those philosophies or religions would not perform such a practice as to paint it on their hood. Such an act is outside of the mindset of these religions or philosophies.

Steve

j.t · 12-09-2006, 02:27 PM

Hi Guys,

I reckon the persons within that vehicle are reckless in driving a car with the nazi symbol.

That could be considered hazardous to their own health. Considering the level of racial tension around at the moment they are just looking for trouble displaying such attention seeking behaviour! And chances are they have probably already found it.

The poor chaps must have been "disturbed" to begin with doing such a thing.
Romper Stomper went out decades ago and so did Hitler. If the persons responsible really understood they would realize they are a lost cause.

I dont think this could have been a mistake because some thought went into putting the damn thing on there in the first place, just didn't think hard enough. Inconsideration rather than ignorance in my view!

Ford Forums "what a great thing"!

Ohio XB · 15-09-2006, 05:38 AM

Something I forgot to mention in my last post. Nazi's and other "extreme" organizations can have demonstrations and voice their views in public. However, in the name of safety and respoinsibility, they need to acquire a permit for doing so in order that security can be planned and organized. Last year here in Toledo Ohio there was a Nazi rally. The year before there was a KKK rally in Cleveland Ohio and that cost the city $300,000 for security.

Steve

Ultimate · 15-09-2006, 06:47 AM

I got nothing against it if it was in relation to budist's, but if its a nazi type one, i would remove it with a axe

aualright · 15-09-2006, 01:10 PM

A section of white supremacists at the Cronulla riots thought they could hijack the Eureka Stockade flag too. It seems these right wing wackos do not have one original thought in their miniscule brains.

flappist · 15-09-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimate

I got nothing against it if it was in relation to budist's, but if its a nazi type one, i would remove it with a axe

So what you are saying is that you are totally intollerent of people who are intollerent of other people and enforce this intollerence with violence.

And if you encounter any of these people you will enforce your intollerence of them with violence?

Hmmmmm.......