Guys, guys...the individual committed a crime even without the racial aggravation. He would have just been charged with disorderly conduct.

Because he used language that could be construed as racist, the charge became racially aggravated disorderly conduct.

No big shakes. It wasn't just a case of calling someone a name, but of disorderly conduct with knobs on.

What I can agree with is that a prison sentence was a bit harsh, but I do not know in any way the evidence or real circumstances of the crime. Just the news report, maybe he is a serial offender for such offences, who knows...

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Why would anyone want the government to have the power to lock someone up for using the wrong combination of words.

Sieg Heil, sieg heil, sieg heil!

Ring a bell? That one's just for race, but your comment is so ill-conceived that it also includes

"Kill Salman Rushdie!", which is called incitement, which, I'm relatively certain most people will agree with, is criminalised for a damn good reason.

incitement is something totally different. As are direct threats, and yelling fire in a crowded theater. But it does start there, and the further you push the line, the less free everyone becomes. I'm one of those "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it" guys.

Racism sucks, but I don't think it's the government's place to defend an individual against hurt feelings.

Originally posted by melatonin


But you essentially say that even considering the association of a negative labels to certain social groups (an outgroup is a group to which you don't
belong) can be viewed as racist (i.e., the judge was).

I had a feeling the word would be particularly arsey, and thankfully you did not disappoint. The very use of the term is dehumanising and bigoted, slotting people into wee "groups"- the only people who benefit are those employed in the race industry like Jesse Jackson........

I study prejudice and racism, so what you were saying was, basically, that I am also racist, just for considering that people do associate outgroups with negative labels. That when I accept that generally calling certain people 'paki' can be viewed of as racist/prejudicial, I must be racist myself.

if you reinforce dehumanising and segmentation then yes, you are part of the problem

The judge has essentially acted correctly - the person used race/national identity in a demeaning manner and/or as a relevant issue during a criminal offence. Thus, assaulting someone is a crime, assaulting them whilst calling them a 'paki' etc is a racially aggravated assault. Even if they are incorrect in their judgment of social group (i.e., the person was indian), it shouldn't matter. The intent was there.

the judge acted accordingly to a spectacularly stupid law, nothing more nothing less.

A crime should not be elevated according "thought" and "intent- for example, if I was killed simply because someone did not like me and decided to torture me to death, why should my killer receive a lesser sentence than someone whom the judge believes killed according to ace, sexual orientation and religion- it elevates one victim above another (which is what all these people involved in the race industry do, ie dehumanise, segment and produce victims) and should be changed. Hopefully a future govt will change such despicable laws







[edit on 10-12-2007 by blueorder]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'm one of those "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it" guys.

A defender of racism. And fighing to defend it too.

Vile.

Originally posted by skibtz
Had the guy actually gone to prison then it would be harsh, however, the sentence was suspended so he wont doing time unless he re-offends in the next 12 months.

Heh, you predant skibtz...

I was just comparing it to previous judgments, which tend to be small fines. I agree that suspending it did reduce its impact, bringing it into a more acceptable range. Still harsh to even consider a prison sentence, but I guess it depends on what exactly he did and has done previously.

Originally posted by blueorder
I had a feeling the word would be particularly arsey, and thankfully you did not disappoint. The very use of the term is dehumanising and bigoted, slotting people into wee "groups"- the only people who benefit are those employed in the race industry like Jesse Jackson........

Eh? Do you not think that prejudice and racism goes a bit beyond keeping the likes of Jesse Jackson off the streets?

if you reinforce dehumanising and segmentation then yes, you are part of the problem

I'm starting to see a trend now...

How is studying the neurobiological basis of prejudice problematic?

I consider social categorisation a pretty normal process, we are 'cognitive misers' and tend to group people for simplicity. But this can become a virulant tendency in some.

the judge acted accordingly to a spectacularly stupid law, nothing more nothing less.

Of course, we should allow this stuff to happen without any recourse, because apparently even considering the existence of racists and bigots is dehumanising, heh.

A crime should not be elevated according "thought" and "intent- for example, if I was killed simply because someone did not like me and decided to torture me to death, why should my killer receive a lesser sentence than someone whom the judge believes killed according to ace, sexual orientation and religion- it elevates one victim above another (which is what all these people involved in the race industry do

I think most killers get the same sentences these days. It's not about elevating people, but about lowering people. Lowering racists and bigots, giving them a similar level of special attention they give particular social groups.

Heh, 'race industry'. Racism was a big problem during the earlier parts of the 20th century, however, legislation did appear to reduce some of the more excessive examples. But, we were still seeing bananas thrown at football palyers in the 1980s. We rarely see that in the UK now. That's super, smashing, great - a good start.

Hasn't solved the issue in total, as we tend to find that bigots and racists channel their negative attitudes other ways, into what can be called 'symbolic racism'. Usually quite easy to spot though...

I don't particularly care whether you think these laws are good or bad. They are for a purpose, and they have been doing their job to a degree. It makes the more embarrassing members of the human race think twice before exhibiting their stupidity in an open fashion.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by skibtz
maybe I should've used the emoticons

Heh, no worries, I wasn't being deadly serious. I think we, at least, are on the same wavelength on this issue.

Originally posted by skibtz

A defender of racism. And fighing to defend it too.

Vile.

Are you serious?????

I defend someone's right to say what they wish without the government stepping in and saying that I am officially wrong. The next step after that is saying that I'm wrong for believing that the Kennedy assassination was planned conspiracy, then that the 9/11 and 7/7 events were not a terrorist attack. Step by step people are letting the government imprison people for personal beliefs.

Vile? How vile is it to let someone go to jail for their personal beliefs. Sure it may be a hateful and spiteful belief, but it's still his own. He didn't hurt anyone by saying what he said.

And until someone is beaten for being black, or Welsh, or for wearing a kilt, or for being Hispanic, you can keep your laws out of my head.

Defending racism

You know what? Until someone is physically hurt, keep it off the front page. If the people in your country are too weak to handle a few hurt feelings it's no wonder we saved your bollocks in WWII ( <- superfluous comment about the US saving UK in WWII, not necessary, but funny anyway)

Ok, raso, I'll give my viewpoint.

It's not just about holding the belief, but exhibiting the belief is numerous negative ways. Thus, we can't stop people believing a certain social group is inferior, that's not really the point.

It's about keeping such beliefs from negatively affecting minority groups. And as I said, I like that. If it helps ameliorate the more excessive virulant racism, then that's great.

Thus, I will fight for the right to call someone stupid, if that hurts someone, whether they be black or white, so what. But I don't think the right to call someone a stupid 'cutiepie' should be defended, the people who do this will take such attitudes into other areas of public life and exhibit it freely. No thanks. We should aim to ensure they know such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society.

They can believe what they like. But they can keep their sh!tty attitudes to themselves.

I don't want to see bananas thrown at black footballers, racist chants at football games, people being refused jobs for being the 'wrong' race/nationality, people being denigrated purely for race/nationality etc etc.

I see some of this stuff in public all the time, it should not be tolerated, and such laws can help a little. We should protect minorities from small-minded idiots.

It's not anything like a thought crime. It's a behaviour crime.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]

Calling someone a 'cutiepie' does have it's own connotations. The word 'cutiepie' may bring along with it the same feeling of helplessness and powerlessness that comes with being of a lower class, or of a one time slave class. It may remind people that their fathers, and grandfathers may bave been dragged behind a pickup truck and hanged by people in white sheets, all the while chanting "hang the 'cutiepie'". Believe me, I understand that words can hurt.

That being said, any group that needs the government to make laws to stop name calling needs to grow a pair. If there is any violence, direct or indirect economic limitations, or any form of discrimination that concretely places people out of reach of the goals they otherwise could reach, then we have a problem. If someone is complaining because their being called fatty, or 'cutiepie' then like I said, grow a pair, because you likely don't know what real racism is.

Originally posted by melatonin
Thus, I will fight for the right to call someone stupid, if that hurts someone, whether they be black or white, so what. But I don't think the right to call someone a stupid 'cutiepie' should be defended, the people who do this will take such attitudes into other areas of public life and exhibit it freely. No thanks. We should aim to ensure they know such behaviour is unacceptable in a modern society.

If they call someone a 'cutiepie' at a bar, then start a fight, then charge them with assault. If they throw bananas onto a soccer field, then charge them with littering, incitement to riot, or attempted assault.

And if you're speaking of a modern society, shouldn't we aim to make the change deeper than just punishment for name calling? Shouldn't the goal be to eliminate the feeling all together? You won't get that by sending people to prison for their beliefs.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Are you serious?????

Racism is a serious issue. For some of us at least.

I defend someone's right to say what they wish without the government stepping in and saying that I am officially wrong.

Well a Judge thinks that you are wrong and plenty of other people around this forum and the rest of the world think so too.

The next step after that is saying that I'm wrong for ...

You have a serious hang up about being wrong.

For all I know there is a God. He is a Nazi and we are meant to evolve in to racists. I could be so wrong!!!

I am telling you that I disagree with you.

Step by step people are letting the government imprison people for personal beliefs.

No one was imprisoned in this case. A suspended setnence was issued for a racist comment made in public.

There was a massive amount of leniency in this case. The maximum sentence could have been an unsuspended seven years.

He got ten weeks suspended and must now be a good boy.

How vile is it to let someone go to jail for their personal beliefs.

Get ready to answer your own question...

Sure it may be a hateful and spiteful belief,

He didn't hurt anyone by saying what he said.

He offended the woman which is why he went to court and was found guilty.

Is any of this actually sinking in yet?

And until someone is beaten for being black, or Welsh, or for wearing a kilt, or for being Hispanic, you can keep your laws out of my head.

You actually need physical violence to occur before it becomes real for you?

Stay off of your pc, the internet and forums if you dont believe in the power of words.

Defending racism

Yes. You. Defending people's rights to use racist comments in public.

You know what? Until someone is physically hurt, keep it off the front page.

Sorry. Im pro-active. I will stand in the face of racist bigots all day long.

If the people in your country are too weak to handle a few hurt feelings it's no wonder we saved your bollocks in WWII ( <- superfluous comment about the US saving UK in WWII, not necessary, but funny anyway)

You use the word We?

You, personally, have done nothing.

WWII was about standing up to racism among other issues. Racism that you are sat here today defending.

Do not disrespect the men & women who fought in those wars by using them as pawns in your shallow attempt at protecting the use of racist terms.

btw...Dont forget. You would have been next.


[edit on 10/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
If they call someone a 'cutiepie' at a bar, then start a fight, then charge them with assault. If they throw bananas onto a soccer field, then charge them with littering, incitement to riot, or attempted assault.

We do. But we can charge them with racially aggravated assault instead or racially aggravated disorderly conduct etc etc. It makes a point to the offender and to society in general. This behaviour will not be tolerated, and if you make it racially salient, we will make sure you know that is also not tolerated.

And if you're speaking of a modern society, shouldn't we aim to make the change deeper than just punishment for name calling? Shouldn't the goal be to eliminate the feeling all together? You won't get that by sending people to prison for their beliefs.

We wouldn't be sending them to prison for their beliefs or even thoughts, but their behaviour.

I think it's a bit more than just name calling in most of the cases. Most involve disordely conduct in some way, but they can just be charged with a more specific form of crime, as I noted earlier it's basically 'disorderly conduct with knobs on'.

In time, we would hope that a zero tolerance approach can produce an even more tolerant and open-minded society, but I fear racist bigots will be difficult to eliminate, controlling their excesses might will be the best we can do.