It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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........
if you reinforce dehumanising and segmentation then yes, you are part of the problem
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
Originally posted by skibtz
maybe I should've used the emoticons
Originally posted by skibtz
A defender of racism. And fighing to defend it too.
Vile.
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.
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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 ...
Step by step people are letting the government imprison people for personal beliefs.
How vile is it to let someone go to jail for their personal beliefs.
Sure it may be a hateful and spiteful belief,
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 (
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.
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 skibtz
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?