Eddie Lowey's Comments

[Terse]

This is idiotic. Japanese, Chinese and Korean, yes they are all from the same Mongoloid racial group and at far eastern Asian one at that.

Contrary to popular beliefs, Mongoloid refers to diverse ethnical groups, and not of a homogeneous group.

Geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza claims that there is a genetic division between East and Southeast Asians. In a like manner, Zhou Jixu agrees that there is a physical difference between these two populations. Other geneticists have found evidence for three separate populations, carrying distinct sets of non-recombining Y chromosome lineages, within the traditional Mongoloid category: North Asians, Han Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Japanese. The complexity of genetic data have led to doubt about the usefulness of the concept of a Mongoloid race itself, since distinctive East Asian features may represent separate lineages and arise from environmental adaptations or retention of common proto-Eurasian ancestral characteristics.

The concept originated with a now disputed typological method of racial classification. All the -oid racial terms (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) are now often controversial in both technical and non-technical contexts and may sometimes give offense no matter how they are used.

 

Permit me to simplify - you're talking out of your ass yet again!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am arguing that they ARE differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, as a comparison with making comments about people in the Middle East. That's the point.

[QLD-Bloke]

This is idiotic. Japanese, Chinese and Korean, yes they are all from the same Mongoloid racial group and at far eastern Asian one at that.

Contrary to popular beliefs, Mongoloid refers to diverse ethnical groups, and not of a homogeneous group.

Geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza claims that there is a genetic division between East and Southeast Asians. In a like manner, Zhou Jixu agrees that there is a physical difference between these two populations. Other geneticists have found evidence for three separate populations, carrying distinct sets of non-recombining Y chromosome lineages, within the traditional Mongoloid category: North Asians, Han Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Japanese. The complexity of genetic data have led to doubt about the usefulness of the concept of a Mongoloid race itself, since distinctive East Asian features may represent separate lineages and arise from environmental adaptations or retention of common proto-Eurasian ancestral characteristics.

The concept originated with a now disputed typological method of racial classification. All the -oid racial terms (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) are now often controversial in both technical and non-technical contexts and may sometimes give offense no matter how they are used.

 

Permit me to simplify - you're talking out of your ass yet again!

 

However, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid were used to describe three very different types of skull noted within Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Its when you try to widen it to "race" that there's a problem - and boy did our 19th century anthropologists go wild with that one!

 

The 'caucasoid' skull type covers a wide variety of europeans, Indians and Native Americans (i think arabs are also 'caucasoid'); the 'negroid' skull type covers the vast variety of humanity in and from Africa (more genetic diversity within Africa than within the rest of the world) and 'mongoloid' skull type covers the variety of east asians you describe so its pretty much no damn good for anyone who's more than a skeleton. Useful in tracking population movement

[Topaz]

A career in the diplomatic service might not be a good idea then.

 

I heard he is a guest on Friday night with Jonathon Ross, this week...They're going to phone Peter Karran and leave messages on his answer phone.

[hboy]

A career in the diplomatic service might not be a good idea then.

 

I heard he is a guest on Friday night with Jonathon Ross, this week...They're going to phone Peter Karran and leave messages on his answer phone.

 

and tell him they've shagged his cat?

[Topaz]

Hell no, Peter's cat's picky.

[Paul_Peel]

A career in the diplomatic service might not be a good idea then.

 

I heard he is a guest on Friday night with Jonathon Ross, this week...They're going to phone Peter Karran and leave messages on his answer phone.

 

Now thats a program I will watch !

[Theodolite]

When seen by proper folk from the UK. a topper politician saying this sort of thing is probably quite controversial.

 

I would imagine that someone will simply remove the words from the Hansard record. It is not unusual on the Isle of Man for records to be *ahem* amended.

This came up in conversation the other day.

 

I needed to bring this up from last year. The final Hansard record has only recently been made available:

http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/hansards/2009-2010/th20102009.pdf

Go to page 84 for the start of the debate.

Not only do the words not appear in Hansard, but Mr Lowey's whole speech has been removed.

 

Now, I wonder what it is that makes me not one bit surprised.

 

Stalin would be proud of the Isle of Man.

[VinnieK]

Hansards aren't generally verbatim accounts of debates, and can be changed in the name of better communicating the substance and arguments. However, the rules are a bit vague and it's wrong that Lowey's comments should be removed when the only possibile reason for doing so is to prevent harm being done to his public image.

 

I'd probably accept that Lowey may not have strictly meant the comment in a derogatory sense or to cause offence, but Hansards should not be amended on the basis that a member of Tynwald wishes he or she hadn't said something or said it in a particular way. To allow such an omission is to open the whole system of reporting debates up to the possibility of abuse, and when members of a parliament speak they should be doing so in considered and measured tones and be prepared to stand by their comments.

 

It's no wonder that Tynwald sometimes sounds like a playground if it can all be swept out of sight whenever someone drops a clanger.

[bishbashbosh]

When seen by proper folk from the UK. a topper politician saying this sort of thing is probably quite controversial.

 

I would imagine that someone will simply remove the words from the Hansard record. It is not unusual on the Isle of Man for records to be *ahem* amended.

This came up in conversation the other day.

 

I needed to bring this up from last year. The final Hansard record has only recently been made available:

http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/hansards/2009-2010/th20102009.pdf

Go to page 84 for the start of the debate.

Not only do the words not appear in Hansard, but Mr Lowey's whole speech has been removed.

 

Now, I wonder what it is that makes me not one bit surprised.

 

Stalin would be proud of the Isle of Man.

 

That's asctually kinda scary!

[Moghrey Mie]

Hansards aren't generally verbatim accounts of debates, and can be changed in the name of better communicating the substance and arguments. However, the rules are a bit vague and it's wrong that Lowey's comments should be removed when the only possibile reason for doing so is to prevent harm being done to his public image.

 

I'd probably accept that Lowey may not have strictly meant the comment in a derogatory sense or to cause offence, but Hansards should not be amended on the basis that a member of Tynwald wishes he or she hadn't said something or said it in a particular way. To allow such an omission is to open the whole system of reporting debates up to the possibility of abuse, and when members of a parliament speak they should be doing so in considered and measured tones and be prepared to stand by their comments.

 

It's no wonder that Tynwald sometimes sounds like a playground if it can all be swept out of sight whenever someone drops a clanger.

 

 

Since they installed voice recognition a couple of years ago I thought Hansards were verbatim accounts.

I know members see it before publication but while words/ vocabulary can be clarified they should not be removed.

[VinnieK]

Since they installed voice recognition a couple of years ago I thought Hansards were verbatim accounts.

I know members see it before publication but while words/ vocabulary can be clarified they should not be removed.

 

I'm not sure what the rules are for Tynwald, but in most other legislatures they're not verbatim. Interjections are usually omitted (or replaced with a generic "interjection" label), as is repetition and other things that interrupt or break the flow of the debate, and I would image that the same is true of Tynwald. The problem we have is that there doesn't appear to be any clear guidelines or rules specifying how and when Hansard may deviate from a verbatim account (or if there are they don't seem to be made public, and so we, conveniently enough, can't identify where alterations have gone beyond what's accepted).

 

I agree entirely: regardless of whether or not Lowey's comment was offensive, words and vocabulary should not be removed - much less a whole speech!

[Declan]

IF we are to believe Lowey's comments were removed because he said something stupid, how come Henderson's speech in the same debate remains.

[Monkey boy]

I think it is a sign of the times when some idiot get more upset by someone making a towel on your head comment than government shamefully wasting three quarters of a million of public money on an unecessary and overpriced white elephant.

[VinnieK]

Two questions:

 

1. Can you give a definite example of someone, one of these idiots (as you've decided they are), who's getting more upset about it than the MEA fiasco?

 

2. Isn't it reasonable to be concerned about the possibility that Hansards may not truly represent the contributions of members of Tynwald, and that it might be possible to alter them to eliminate a gaffe being entered onto the permanent record of parliament's debates?