Dear Facebook

Reblogged from The Melodramatic Confessions of Carla Louise

Originally posted on December 31, 2015

Dear Facebook,                                                                                                    

I love you. I really do. When I lived eight hours away from my family and twelve hours away from my friends, you made it so easy (and affordable) to keep in contact with everyone.

However, recently, I’ve realised that you are letting me down – and other women – on a continual basis.


Well, according to your Community Standards, Facebook is designed to “keep you safe”. (Yes, I know we all need to be realistic in regards to “safe”. If you post a naked photo, it’s the internet, it’ll never come down. If you criticise your boss, and he or she sees it, they may fire you. “Safe” is a relative term; but please, bear with me.) We can report people and their content can be removed and disabled if we are being threatened, harassed and abused – among other things (like hate speeches and symbols).

Supposedly, according to your standards, you work to “encourage respectful behaviour”.

However, when I reported a man’s threatening, abusive and racist behaviour (on behalf of another woman), your review came back saying you found that his comments didn’t violate the community standards you say you uphold.

Don’t believe me?

I took screenshots.

It gets worse … trust me.

Despite the fact that this man insulted people of colour, Jewish people, women who “consorted” with people of colour, and said that she would get “ravaged a pack of feral n*****”, you did not deem any of this to be harassment. Or hate speech. Or anything. And this was all one man, to one woman, who just ignored it. You responded with your standard, “This does not violate Facebook’s Community Standards”.

Really? How?

So then I decided to report my own abuse and threats that I was currently receiving, and you responded in the exact same manner.

So I started taking more and more screenshots.

Jack, my lovely friend Jack here, as you can see below (I’ve only snipped parts of it …. his conversations were incredibly long, and while I was originally going to include all of it, I figured that the ‘general gist’ was better than the whole nine yards which were hundreds of words long) felt it perfectly acceptable to insult, abuse and harass me.

He’s okay with calling me a retard:

And a fuckwit:

And a moron:

And he’s comfortable with insulting domestic violence victims, while calling me a dumbass:

Then he started posting in public forums about me, because I blocked him for continually insulting me (I’m crazy like that – and it may not seem like much, but I have 35 copies of Jack’s insults. That’s thirty-five screen-shots I could use to prove just how many times Jack insulted me. Let that sink in just for a moment before telling me “It’s not that bad”.):

Then he created a new profile, because I blocked him (and he called me a twat … but I guess that’s okay, in your standards, Facebook? Because he didn’t use c***? And it’s obviously not harassment when someone creates a second profile and comes back to find you on an old thread to insult you. This was an old thread. Days old. He says he came back to see what I was saying, but I said nothing after I blocked him. There wasn’t anything to say; he was clearly a troll. However, despite this, he continues to harass me for a bit longer):

My response to Jack’s harassment; he posted a comment saying I was a ‘coward’ for blocking him, among other insults.

Apparently, I am only allowed to be offended if they’re ‘gendered’ insults, in Jack’s mind (and edit – I did not call Jack any of these names. I try and always keep my discussions civil; I was merely recounting the names he’d called me, because I said that ‘feminism was needed because of the insults women face on the internet. Clearly, Jack feels it’s okay to insult women if they aren’t gendered insults):

And he’s not afraid to call me crazy when I call him out:

And does not understand the definition of ‘harassment’:

He also believes stereotypes are okay, and introduces a new insult (I guess after a time ‘fuckwit’ and ‘moron’ get boring):

And then tries to shame me (unsuccessfully) after creating the second profile, because I don’t want to listen to his abuse or be bombarded by his constant harassment. But apparently, feeling that this is unacceptable behaviour from anyone is ‘cowardly’:


And so I reported Jack. And blocked him for the second time:


And despite the fact of all of this, Facebook still tells me that this does not define harassment. Or abuse. Or indecent behaviour of any kind.

Oh, and what about when I reported “John Hunt”? Whose account is obviously fake, as he uses Jon Hamm’s photos and has maybe 30 friends, most of which are naked women, used solely to troll and insult women because #menimism.

Almost all of his pictures are supported with the hashtag #servethecock.


And here:

And here:

(There’s more, but I think you see my point.)

Yet, you, Facebook, deemed not one of these to be offensive. Somehow, this does not violate your community standards – but women showing pictures of breast feeding (and no visible nipple) is not okay? Women showing their recovery after a mastectomy – where there is no nipple to even show – that violates your community standards?

And somehow, #servethecock does not violate these standards?

A man creating a second profile to track me down and further harass and insult me also does not violate your standards?

A man saying he hopes a woman gets raped is not a violation?

I am a woman, and I am tired of being insulted and shamed and abused and threatened when I’ve posted anything on Facebook.

Also, Facebook, please keep in mind that Jack’s screenshots were all taken in the past twenty-four hours.

Imagine the screenshots I’d have in a week.

In a month.

Think of all the times a woman – or a man – is abused, threatened and harassed and you do nothing because somehow (god knows how) but you say that this doesn’t violate your community standards.

So please, Facebook. Maybe you need to be clearer about what violates your “community standards” because I’m shocked and confused about about how #servethecock and “I hope you get raped” is somehow not worse than a breastfeeding photo.

You are not protecting anyone.

You are not keeping anyone safe.

And you need to rethink, seriously, about how people can report profiles, memes, and comments, because right now your reporting process is beyond unacceptable.

Perhaps start by separating the categories – harassment and hate speech shouldn’t be together; nor should a lot of other categories. Give a person 50 words or less to write and explain why they are reporting an image or a person (so, for example, you know that I’ve had to block Jack for his behaviour more than once and perhaps maybe you’d take that into consideration).

And just so it’s clear: this is not about revenge; not on any of these men. This is not about maybe getting someone fired from a job – which is why, for the most part, I’ve tried to block out everyone’s names and pictures (except for John Hunt … because, you know, obviously fake). I am not trying to shame any one individual; I’m trying to make a point. The point is that Facebook’s current system, it’s “community standards” is a failure.

Your current system is despicable. I’ve tried telling you this each time you’ve “failed” when I’ve reported something, and nothing has ever happened. My only hope is that this message gets enough attention that you see it.

And get the problem.

Fix it.



Note: Facebook, after you failed me twice, Twitter is far more helpful. You see, because Jack is a stalker who does not understand harassment, he is tracking me down on every able source, because it’s “fun”. (And other women; so thanks for failing, Facebook.) However, because Twitter gives you the opportunity to explain why you want to report a person, I actually had the opportunity to explain the reasons why he actually was harassing me. But thanks, Facebook. Way to show “safety” in a community.


WIN: Misogynistic bullying account terminated

The ups and downs of an anonymous, anti-fascist life

Reblogged from Overland


Anonymity is a funny thing. ‘The one barrier me and my buddies have regarding beating the shit out of you is your anonymity,’ an anonymous critic once informed me.

I declined to provide the angry Aryan with my personal details, but his message, and many more like it, reinforced the idea that giving the general public – and hence neo-Nazis – my name and address would probably not be a good move.

‘What’s your name?’ is a very common question, the answer providing a potential wealth of information. The relationship between a name and a person is something I’ve had reason to seriously contemplate over the last few months, especially as it relates to my monitoring the activities of the far right. Happily, the Internet makes it possible for a person to assume any number of names and to affix to them a variety of personalities.

Malcolm Harris writes that a ‘fundamental anonymity means names stand not for individuals, but for contingent singularities, subjects that are not who but what they say’. For some, this can be a liberating experience: anonymity provides a shield, from behind which they can express ideas their position otherwise precludes them from doing, or doing in relative safety. In my experience, anonymity has its downside too: maintaining it is time-consuming, I’m unable to claim credit for a large amount of the work that I do and I’m often unable to take advantage of opportunities to do other, equally interesting kinds of work.

Several years ago, there was some public discussion regarding blogging and anonymity, occasioned by the public exposure of several local bloggers. In one 2008 case, several Victorian Liberal Party staffers lost their jobs after it was discovered they’d been attacking their party’s then leader, ‘Red’ Ted Baillieu, on an anonymous blog. In 2010, The Australian (editor’s note: it was James Massola) took it upon itself to out the political blogger Grog’s Gamut as Greg Jericho, a public servant. Although these unmaskings were decidedly unwelcome, the staffers who lost their jobs have gone on to bigger and better things, as has Jericho. This year, on behalf of the Australian Writers Centre, he judged The Koori Woman as the best commentary blog of 2014. He continues to write for The Guardian and the ABC’s Drum. His research on blogs and social media was eventually published as a book, The Rise of the Fifth Estate, ‘the first book to examine the emergence of social media as a new force in the coverage of Australian politics’.

Some have argued that online anonymity is like a cancer on the body politic. In 2009, Clive Hamilton wrote that an ‘ugly culture of dogmatic and belligerent interventions now dominates social and political debate on the Internet’. In Australia, The Anti-Bogan regularly documents aspects of this culture and publicly names and shames those engaged in racist, sexist and homophobic abuse online. The Melbourne-based Online Hate Prevention Institute has declared that it aims to ‘be a world leader in combating online hate’ and ‘change online culture so hate in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is “in real life”’.

Perhaps the most telling argument for the importance of anonymity is the act of whistle-blowing – consequently, hacktivists are always seeking to stay one step ahead of authorities. One of the latest such ventures is Media Direct, ‘a secure communications platform facilitating direct and anonymous contact with leading journalists’. Launched in May, Media Direct represents a further evolution in whistle-blowing technology, according to its Australian coordinator, Luke McMahon. ‘We’ve produced a self-contained system,’ he says. ‘Media Direct brings together technical and non-technical tools to realise the most appropriate approach to the contemporary media environment. Media Direct, unlike Wikileaks, is not a publisher, but rather allows whistleblowers to safely convey information to select journalists directly.’ In this context, anonymity exists at the opposite end of the spectrum to celebrity.

The ability to convey information safely is obviously key to whistle-blowing, but in the context of anti-fascist organising, both collecting and conveying information to the public present certain difficulties. Daryle Lamont Jenkins, of the US-based antifascist organisation One Peoples Project, acknowledges that ‘as with anything there are pros and cons to being anonymous, but a big issue is that within antifa circles most of us are’. This is justifiable, ‘understandable and oftimes when it comes to gathering info, necessary. Problem is, with so many of us taking that route, it makes us that much more inaccessible and detached. That’s a problem. Antifa need to be more public.’

For activists, the chief obstacle is that being public can mean serious harassment. The Australia First Party, for instance, has recently published a series of increasingly bizarre claims regarding my blogging activities, both on its website and on leading White supremacist website Stormfront. Party leader Dr James Saleam is a veteran fascist with a long string of criminal convictions, most notably organising a shotgun assault on the Sydney home of African National Congress representative Eddie Funde in 1989. Stormfront itself is ‘the web’s most famous and ubiquitous white supremacist and neo-Nazi website’ – and has numerous Australian members.

While post-Second World War Australia has largely been spared fascist violence, elsewhere in the world the story is very different. Last week in Las Vegas, a former neo-Nazi skinhead named Melissa Hack pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to murder two anti-racist skinheads, Dan Shersty and Lin Newborn, in 1998.

As documented in such films as Antifascist Attitude (2008), numerous antifascists have been murdered by neo-Nazis in post-Soviet Russia. Indeed, one of the stars of the film, human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, was murdered in Moscow in January 2009, alongside journalist Anastasia Baburova. Another documentary, about the life of murdered antifascist Ivan Khutorskoy, has just been released; there was also a European tour by two Russian antifascist bands to raise funds for his family that finished just last month.

The journalist who outed Greg Jericho argued that ‘if you are influencing the public debate … it is the public’s right to know who you are’, and that there may be tactical advantages to going public. But given the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary and the election of the NPD’s Udo Voigt to the European parliament (Voigt was denied a visa to Australia in 2003 to address a fascist gathering on the grounds of his poor character), the consequences of engaging in antifascist activity in much of Europe will likely escalate. How antifascists negotiate these opposing concerns will determine, in part, their success in combating the rising fascist tide.


It stops with me

The Australian Independent Media Network

bullyracism              sexual harrassment

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”

When I heard Chief of Army, David Morrison, utter these words about incidents of sexual harassment in the Australian Armed Forces, I stood up and cheered.  These are words that truly resonated with me and that we must all heed.  It is time for everyone to take personal responsibility, not for the economic reasons being thrown at us, but for a far greater cause – that of humanity.

I listened to Anne Summers give the Human Rights and Social Justice lecture at Newcastle University in 2012 where she shone a light on the political bullying of our first female Prime Minister.  We have all heard the clips, read the quotes, and seen the posters, but are you aware that, for many months, cartoonist and conman Larry Pickering bombarded not just Julia but every member of…

View original post 456 more words

Did Aboriginals Deserve an Apology? – “This is not a racist page”



Kevin Rudd apologised as Prime Minister at the time on behalf of the government and people of Australia. Whether he was around during the period of the Stolen Generations or not is irrelevant.


Indigenous reactions to the Apology were positive. Indigenous people were not concerned whether Rudd had been “around” or not,  just that he was there as Prime Minister representing the government and the nation.


Oh and we know of no Indigenous people, alive or dead, who were or are “grateful” for being snatched away from their families. The anonymous admin of that page must live in another universe!


“He makes white Australians feel uncomfortable”



The Stupidity Award for Facebook Racism has to go to Jarrod Schaub


WRONG you cretin. Indigenous people have lived here for more than 40 000 years.

And guess what fuckwit!  The Chinese had an empire and an advanced civilisation for thousands of years and invented many things we still use but had no glass.



And they were even kind enough to invent the foldable umbrella for Jarrod’s European ancestors who obviously couldn’t manage it themselves.


And it gets better – or worse.

Jarrod is not the end of the dregs there. Take a look at “Mark Whiteman” who likes to grab the profile pics of people who dare to disagree with him and misuse them.

Sound familiar?

It’s something that goes with far right nutzi politics because when they get out in the real world they find their political nutjobbery has nothing to offer.

It is much easier for them to bully and intimidate young Aboriginal women for instance.



We are fairly sure that the real owner of that picture, State of Michigan political analyst Marlon Brown, who is an African-American albino, would not be too impressed by knowing that a white supremacist was misusing his photograph.

We know where to contact Marlon and we’ll be letting him know.

Joining “Mark” for some tag team bullying action is Chris Smith.



Yeah we know that Chris. You have quite a track record.

Chris Smith 1

This might have been at the Sandringham Hotel in Newtown where him and his motley crew like to hang out despite all the gay leftie greenies who are thick on the ground in that part of Sydney.

Chris has been in the neo-Nazi scene for a long time with a bunch of fellow fantasists called Volksfront.  That is, when he’s not fronting the beak at Penrith Court.

So is Did Aboriginals Deserve an Apology? a racist page?

Oh yes indeed!


Slackbastard blog is a mine of information on far right fringe groups and their antics

Law and Order: Not-so-special-victims

Facebook fails the tolerance test

According to the film, The Social Network, Mark Zuckerberg conceived and founded Facebook largely as a result of being rejected by his girlfriend at the time.

So perhaps we must ask ourselves whether Facebook is merely a gigantic pervasive adolescent frat-boy fantasy theme park based on the need for acceptance and the need for the socially anxious to hang with the cool people and become awesome (and score women of course)

Adolescents are in the process of becoming adults. As part of that process they exhibit a number of characteristics, many of which are irritating to the real adults in their lives.

  • unrealistic expectations
  • pre-occupation with self – everyone is like me
  • preoccupation with image
  • overwhelming desire for acceptance
  • black and white thinking
  • impulsivity

However in the real world, in order to survive, adolescents need to grow up.

Unrealistic expectations

We are told that Facebook has a physical workforce at its US headquarters of around 4000 people. This is supposed to ensure the smooth running of an organisation which has a customer base estimated at one billion

Ingham’s Chickens Victorian factory employs about 3000.

Except Facebook deals with all the complexities and pitfalls of human interactions online.

Inghams deals with dead chickens.

Facebook deals with customer complaints, privacy concerns, online security and hate speech (?)

In a lame attempt to stretch its Californian workforce more thinly, Facebook has outsourced much of its moderation and response to reports to an offshore entity called oDesk Part of this process is the running of bots which supposedly identify offensive content and sends alleged offenders automated messages.

oDesk moderator on the job

Some four billion pieces of content are shared every day by 845 million users. And while most are harmless, it has recently come to light that the site is brimming with paedophilia, pornography, racism and violence – all moderated by outsourced, poorly vetted workers in third world countries paid just $1 an hour. (Daily Telegraph UK)

However this kind of “moderation” is full of pitfalls and is open to abuse as pointed out by activist Segway Jeremy Ryan who got his account compromised while campaigning against the Governor of Wisconsin’s planned budget cuts.

Trolls are now having activists removed by filing fake Facebook complaints. That is right, people are suppressing information in Wisconsin by actively reporting people they deem to be a threat on Facebook. I myself have been reported and banned for one to three days for simply posting “Good job” or “The majority of Wisconsin doesn’t like Scott Walker.” People have been reported on pages for saying nothing more than my name and have been reprimanded by Facebook. The strategy is simple and Facebook lets it continue. If someone reports something as abusive to Facebook they don’t actually look at it, they just remove it and warn the person who posted it. If you get enough you are not able to dispute them at all, and with no admin contacts and no one at Facebook actually looking at the posts reported as “abusive,” the person gets blocked.

Pre-occupation with self – everyone is like me

Mark Zuckerberg, it is said, wants the world to be an open place where everyone is transparent (except for the Facebook business model but that’s another story) So much so it seems that Facebook managed to upset no less a person than acclaimed Nobel Prize-winning British author Salman Rushdie.

Read more

Pre-occupation with image

Well at least where women’s breasts are concerned – specifically the breasts of nursing mothers.

So while racists, bigoted, anti-woman Facebook hate sites abound, if you dare show a picture of a happy nursing mum and her baby you are likely to get a bot warning from oDesk.

Or as one wit put it “Jew-haters are welcome on Facebook as long as they are not lactating”.

Your warning would look like this:

And if you are really really lucky you might get one of these, complete with either space tags or misplaced end tags, just to underline and emphasise its innate stupidity.

The Gold Medal for Facebook Stupidity is an e mail like this one below. And again note the tags.

The item in question was actually this. We remember it well, it was posted at TAB Facebook page and mass reported despite being neither obscene nor featuring real people.

Then again the racists didn’t like it…

Apparently Zuckerberg and the kiddies came up with this  “solution” for the problem of undesirable content on Facebook.


Well hey we could really see how that one would work…


Err Mark, which planet are you on again?


Sorry Mark, from our point of view most anti-discrimination activists are way past the age of having teachers and some of us don’t even have parents. It might work if our “trusted friend” was this err…person.

The “trusted friend” we’d like to have

Desire for acceptance

Facebook goes out of its way to be accepted as THE universal social network platform. Its whole business bottom line is based on that premise. The more fools click on the ads and sign up for the data miners, the more money Facebook makes.

In doing so it hosts a variety of fringe wackos who’d be hard pressed writing their own names in the real world.

On Facebook, you do not need the rudimentary web skills you require to run a message board for instance. So that’s why racists, bigots and other semi-literate hate mongers have flocked there in droves rather than gathering at other longer-established hate sites like Scumfront or Winds of Jihad, where they can mix exclusively with others of their kind.

And this is why.

Not only does Facebook give them a laughably easy platform to use, it also lets them share a space with the mainstream. It is rather analogous to the local crack dealer setting up a store on the village green, rather than hiding away in a dark alley.

Hello kiddies. Welcome to Freakbook. We want you to make us very happy…(League of Gentlemen)

So when the kids get onto Facebook to interact with their real-life friends, there’s a whole bunch of Fuck Off We’re Full-type sites just waiting to groom them and entice them in. Something which did not escape this critic from an atheist site.

As far as Facebook pages and groups go, we use the living-room test at TAB for sites. Would you allow the people on site XYZ into your living room? If the answer is NO then we shouldn’t have to endure their intrusion into our space. In real life we do not choose to, nor do we have to associate with, racists, bigots and the like. And we can ensure our kids are kept away from haters.

Of course Zuckerberg apologises. In fact he does so often. Perhaps a little too often for someone who is trying to float a public company. Maybe that’s why savvy share buyers have stayed away in droves – that and everything else we have outlined.

In fact Better Business Bureau gave Facebook an “F” rating with the following comment

Our opinion of what this rating means:
We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices.


One day Zuckerberg must have awoken with a brilliant thought bubble. Why not allow users themselves to police the Facebook site? That way he wouldn’t be forking out hundreds of thousands to pay a bunch of nerds to moderate content.

This sounds nice and cosy at first, not to mention cheap as chips, until you take a look at the calibre of some of the Facebook users. You don’t have to go very far to do that.

Just check out the names on our very own tag cloud.

From Wikipedia:

Enabling of Harassment

Facebook instituted a policy by which it is now self-policed by the community of Facebook users. Some users have complained that this policy allows Facebook to empower abusive users to harass them by allowing them to submit reports on even benign comments and photos as being “offensive” or “in violation of Facebook Rights and Responsibilities” and that enough of these reports result in the user who is being harassed in this way getting their account blocked for a predetermined number of days or weeks, or even deactivated entirely…In addition, Facebook does not ban the IPs of users who have proven to create multiple accounts for the purposes of trolling or stalking others, thereby enabling the harasser, even if they do have one of the offending accounts deactivated, to simply create another one and continue the harassment with no lasting consequences

Take a look at what happened recently to one of our sister sites, a group which exposes racism directed at Indigenous Australians.


So the ABC’s 7:30 programme recently decided to check out these claims.

And it gets better. After being criticised by our own AFP’s cyber crime unit Facebook responded thus:

Facebook is a service devoted to helping people share and making the world more open and connected.

As such, we often must balance the need for freedom of expression and the even greater need of preventing any harm to the people who use our service.

To achieve this balance, when we write our policies, we must exclude offensiveness when determining which pages are harmful.

So it seems thanks to Facebook we now have a new definition of “offensiveness”. “Offensiveness” according to Facebook are violations of areas which most of the civilised world has long decided are no-go areas.

Facebook regards the following as mere “offensiveness” it seems – racism, religious bigotry, particularly directed at Muslims and Jews ( including Holocaust denial and Protocol-style vilifying myths about Muslims),  but also at Indigenous Australians, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, intimidation, defamation, identity theft and the propagation of violent political ideologies such as neo-Nazism.

And speaking of names, this is what Facebook’s apologist Simon Axten thinks of activists who wish to conceal their identities.

And when asked to respond to a request for assistance from no less an agency than the WA Human Rights Commission, this was his glib reply.


In Australia for anti-racists and other social justice activists, having to reveal your identity can mean harassment, intimidation and violence from your enemies.In many other countries it can mean imprisonment, torture and death. But this obviously doesn’t bother Simon.

So let’s see if the new head of Facebook’s Australia-New Zealand operations can do a better job. Here’s his CV.

And his photo. Watch for him in the better Sydney eateries.

Here’s William Easton. No doubt the identity thieves at Facebook will be grabbing this.

Unlike what is demanded of Facebook members, William is a tad shy about revealing his contact details so that we can send our complaints to him. So we might help him out with a Facebook-style fatwa he can use. It’s a lot more honest than the one Facebook is using at the moment.

BONUS No tedious <br><br>


Feel free to post it to your own profile, use it on your blogs and  annoy Facebook with it.


Facebook Australia has a page. However by the look of the randoms posting there we wouldn’t bother.

However William Easton has a Facebook page 


Read more

Report: Facebook A Haven For Hate Groups

The dark side of Facebook

Facebook lacks ‘social responsibility’, says top cop

Facebook is defying the common decency test

Facebook pages show not so social media

Inside Facebook’s Outsourced Anti-Porn and Gore Brigade, Where ‘Camel Toes’ are More Offensive Than ‘Crushed Heads’

The Hitler Shield: Mocking the Dead at Facebook

Ironic humour department

Facebook mistakes elbow for breast

And Where is Facebook’s Support Staff?

Well may we ask! 😕

However you may get somewhere by complaining to the local Better Business Bureau

Good luck!

Burwood Council tackles racism

SBS World News

Sydney council tries to tackle racism

By Katrina Yu World News Australia Cadet Reporter
16 November 2011 | 06:40:10 PM

In Sydney’s inner west, one council is doing something about the scourge of racism.

Students are being trained to lead the ‘Different People Different Voices Project’, which aims to stamp-out bullying related to culture and race.

“It starts with bullying – and if you’re constantly made to feel that what you believe is wrong or against the community..because of that loneliness you’re disconnected to the consequences of your actions”, Youth Leadership trainer Natasha Munasinghe says.

“And that could be when it leads to more violence”

A study into racism by the University of Western Sydney has found that while a majority of residents say they value diversity, 40% believe certain ethnic or cultural groups don’t belong in Australia.

The project hopes to break down the fear associated with different cultures.